FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[sar104]

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

No - it won't do that - it will publicly announce that a pilot, not identified, is controlling a sUAS, also not identified, from that location.

 

[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.

If the state or federal government told you that you may not drive any vehicle on the road without a GPS tracker what would you think?

 

[Thomas B]

If the state or federal government told you that you may not drive any vehicle on the road without a GPS tracker what would you think?

Irrelevant... no one needs to fly a drone. Technology is already marketed to track drones, and in use by some U.S. cities.

 

[Chip]

Irrelevant... no one needs to fly a drone. Technology is already marketed to track drones, and in use by some U.S. cities.

Why do you need to drive a car? Have you not heard of the fossil fuel crisis? Maybe the government just wants to study auto safety or commuting or something safety related. Are you saying you would refuse to cooperate?

 

[Thomas B]

Why do you need to drive a car? Have you not heard of the fossil fuel crisis? Maybe the government just wants to study auto safety or commuting or something safety related. Are you saying you would refuse to cooperate?

I drive a Tesla. Public transportation in PHX metro is terrible to nonexistent. My comment had nothing to do with automobiles or human transportation.
I have nothing to hide from the government or regulatory agencies.

Please make your input to FAA/DOT where it will have a chance of bettering the situation.

 

[wco81]

PII?

What is the rationale for letting third-parties have that data?

I guess we'll be paying for the companies to broadcast this info on the Internet.

 

[sar104]

PII?

What is the rationale for letting third-parties have that data?

I guess we'll be paying for the companies to broadcast this info on the Internet.

There is no PII involved.

 

[Phochief]

Again, I strongly urge everyone to send comments to the FAA requesting that the Remote ID data NOT include real-time drone pilot location that is accessible to the general public. The location of the drone pilot should only be available to the FAA, law enforcement and other pilots. Flying your drone legally and following the rules won't be much fun if we're confronted by angry drone haters who know where we are.

 

[Chip]

PII? What is the rationale for letting third-parties have that data?

Maybe to try and exploit the third-party doctrine which is a legal doctrine from the 1970s that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was the landmark case in which the US Supreme Court held that installing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the third-party doctrine still makes sense stating:

it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.

 

[Chip]

I drive a Tesla. Public transportation in PHX metro is terrible to nonexistent. My comment had nothing to do with automobiles or human transportation.
I have nothing to hide from the government or regulatory agencies.

Please make your input to FAA/DOT where it will have a chance of bettering the situation.

I was just responding to the argument that its okay to track drones but not vehicles because no one "has to" fly a drone. Whether one "has to" do anything is debatable as is the relative value of recreational and commercial activities.

 

[Matriculated01]

No - it won't do that - it will publicly announce that a pilot, not identified, is controlling a sUAS, also not identified, from that location.

What does it mean that an sUAS is “also not identified?” Does an sUAS have a potential identity of its own? What does that mean?

 

[islandflyer]

No, it’s not. A law enforcement agency can decide at ANY point to plug into the existing tracking mechanism already created and conveniently placed there for the picking by the FAA. Any reasonable person will look beyond the words on the paper and see the real world consequences, or at least potential consequences, that could come up and most likely will sooner or later. And anyway what’s the difference between that and after the fact database mining? You get the same data, and they will surely get it, anyway. By “they” I refer to local governments for tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Exactly. When they started accessing people's DNA via 23andMe or Ancestry to catch relatives, they don't need to ask permission.

 

[PAW]

Sar, being the corporate tool he is, may be useful in understanding exactly what the corps mean but take it all in understanding he hates you and what you do.

Suggested reading.

Available at Amazon $3.69 (paperback).

 

[Velocyraptor]

A good reason to stay in the sub 250 gram and continue to build my own....

You know, manned aircraft aren't supposed to be below 500 agl and uas not over 400 agl most places.... Just sayin'

True, Actually an obvious statement. However, I see statements on the internet, and even on this forum, by drone pilots describing their drones at 500 feet AGL and more.You tube had a video of a hexacopter at 1100 feet AGL. Is this a possible reason for the increased controls described in this new FAA proposal? We need to police ourselves, if not, we will be policed by others.

 

[anotherlab]

Again, I strongly urge everyone to send comments to the FAA requesting that the Remote ID data NOT include real-time drone pilot location that is accessible to the general public. The location of the drone pilot should only be available to the FAA, law enforcement and other pilots. Flying your drone legally and following the rules won't be much fun if we're confronted by angry drone haters who know where we are.

There are two sides of this. If you think you are being harassed by a drone operator, being able to show LEO a history of flights buzzing your yard that come from a a disgruntled neighbor, this gives you a tool. That's probably a worst case scenario, but laws and regulations tend to get written to deal with the edge cases.

There is a potential middle ground. You could list the operator's location but strip out some of the precision of the lat/lon coordinates. If you report the lat/lon only to two decimal places, that makes the lat and the long precise only down to 1.1 KM. That would satisfy the need to list the location of a sUAS operator but not provide enough information for the villagers to chase after that operator with pitch forks and burning torches.

And let's remember one thing. An angry drone hater could follow a drone back to where it was launched from. Or just shoot the thing down as it flies over his pool. The real battle is not with Remote ID, it's the public's perception of drones. The only way to battle FUD is to let people actually play with the toys. DJI could sponsor adult continuing education classes where people would get a few sessions flying Mavic Mini or Spark drones in a high school gym. Doing stuff like that is cheap (compared to buying lobbying government officials) and go a long way to changing the public perception of drones.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

True, Actually an obvious statement. However, I see statements on the internet, and even on this forum, by drone pilots describing their drones at 500 feet AGL and more.You tube had a video of a hexacopter at 1100 feet AGL. Is this a possible reason for the increased controls described in this new FAA proposal? We need to police ourselves, if not, we will be policed by others.

The counter to that is with all the reports of this type (flights into controlled airspace, above the 400' restrict, flights over people, flights at night, etc.), taking into account the millions of drones being flown, how many accidents, injuries and deaths have occurred?

 

[Phochief]

There are two sides of this. If you think you are being harassed by a drone operator, being able to show LEO a history of flights buzzing your yard that come from a a disgruntled neighbor, this gives you a tool.

The LEO would already have the exact location of the drone and the operator, so there would be no need for the neighbor to "show the LEO a history of flights". If indeed a drone operator was harassing someone with their drone, a phone call to the police would be sufficient for them to investigate the alleged incident. That's the way it should work. But if the angry drone-harassed neighbor can actually see the exact location of the drone operator, he could drive to the pilot's location and beat him with a broom. I don't want to get beaten with a broom.

 

[Hawkwind]

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

Thanks for sharing.

I do think that the limit for limited remote ID to 400ft is overly restrictive for VLOS flights in remote areas. There should be allowance to fly VLOS without any internet connection. If the UA broadcasts it’s information without being tethered tonthe internet, that would be OK.

 

[sar104]

Thanks for sharing.

I do think that the limit for limited remote ID to 400ft is overly restrictive for VLOS flights in remote areas. There should be allowance to fly VLOS without any internet connection. If the UA broadcasts it’s information without being tethered tonthe internet, that would be OK.

If the UAV broadcasts the details then it would be operating under Standard Remote ID, not Limited Remote ID, and wouldn't need an internet connection.

 

[DoomMeister]

brett sounds like you’re into these whoops. You’ve been talking about em for a while now. Never took it seriously. Never thought I’d go there. But, now drones are banned in city parks and desperate times call for desperate measures. We have an RC park not far away boring after a while with Mavic but probably great place to go FPV Whoopdie. Never flown FPV but bet I would like it. Thanks for the inspiration! Which model and accessories do I need?

Be sure to stock up on Dramamine. You’ll need it! My son flies FPV and I get motion sickness watching video from the drone. ?