https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-dji-spying-americans

[Chip]

You said that they are already flying BVLOS, over people etc. Where is this publicly on record?

Yes FAA gave permission for PD to fly BVLOS 3 miles from PD rooftop. PD has openly discussed with journalists. What does the sectional look like for Chula Vista airspace just out of curiosity?

 

[sar104]

Yes FAA gave permission for PD to fly BVLOS 3 miles from PD rooftop. PD has openly discussed with journalists. What does the sectional look like for Chula Vista airspace just out of curiosity?

So it is certainly possible to get FAA authorization to fly BVLOS to support emergency operations. I did that just yesterday as it happens. However, one of the requirements is that a TFR is put into place to prevent conflict with other traffic - mine was a 4 NM radius TFR up to 400 ft AGL. So unless PD has a permanent TFR over Chula Vista then I'm pretty certain that they don't have BVLOS authorization in their COA.

Chula Vista airspace seems to be a mixture of surface Class D and Class G under a Class B shelf.

 

[jagraphics]

And the CIA don't have the same ability to gain data from US manufacturers?

Nope. Not at all.....



But the NSA and FBI do
As we say in the UK "GCHQ: Always listening to our customers!"

 

[R2TheTroll]

The problem is, our local stores are out of tinfoil during this crisis, and I can't make my hat.

 

[jagraphics]

For the most part - nothing useful, certainly for publicly operated drones. That's not necessarily true for drones use by the military or around sensitive/classified operations. That, of course, was the genesis of the DoD's original concerns - they were being used in training operations if not actual deployment.

That was silly of the DoD to use DJI drones like that It but was discussed to death previously. So no need to go through it all again.

The military made a mistake. Everyone laughed at them!
.... and then EVERYONE in miltary and inteligence circles thought "( Mod Removed) we did that last month! Hide the evidence and get that drone out of here!"
That is except our (UK ) armed forces who would never be so silly as it says on the Official MoD Statement to the Government Minster.

 

[sar104]

That was silly of the DoD to use DJI drones like that It but was discussed to death previously. So no need to go through it all again.

The military made a mistake. Everyone laughed at them!
.... and then EVERYONE in miltary and inteligence circles thought "Oh ( Mod Removed ) we did that last month! Hide the evidence and get that drone out of here!"
That is except our (UK ) armed forces who would never be so silly as it says on the Official MoD Statement to the Government Minster.

It has been discussed ad nauseam, but that doesn't change its relevance to this conversation.

 

[Terry63]

Just checked Google Earth. The imagery for my house is from 2013. My old garden tractor I gave away 4 years ago is still there.

 

[zocalo]

For the most part - nothing useful, certainly for publicly operated drones. That's not necessarily true for drones use by the military or around sensitive/classified operations. That, of course, was the genesis of the DoD's original concerns - they were being used in training operations if not actual deployment.

Yeah, I think that's the original (and potentially legitimate) main concern here, then it's become a political tool that has been blown out of all proportion. It's not just about the imagery - in the right scenarios just the telemetry metadata might be quite interesting.

As a few examples if drones are being used in special forces training exercises then the locations of those training exercises might be useful to pin point areas for increased satellite surveillance. Likewise, drones running an obvious survey grid pattern within a large area used by the military might indicate a pending construction or exercise - again, prompting further investigation. Then you've got the ability to track a given drone around the world. If you can determine that a given drone is almost certainly being operated by the military, and it suddenly pops up somewhere unexpected - like within the borders of another, potentially hostile, nation state - then that too would absolutely be of interest to foreign intelligence services.

Those are all pretty niche cases though, and in some scenarios can probably be managed if you make the assumption that the data is probably compromised, but to say they are grounds for a blanket ban on use by ALL government agencies is a stretch, to say the least.

 

[Chip]

So it is certainly possible to get FAA authorization to fly BVLOS to support emergency operations. I did that just yesterday as it happens. However, one of the requirements is that a TFR is put into place to prevent conflict with other traffic - mine was a 4 NM radius TFR up to 400 ft AGL. So unless PD has a permanent TFR over Chula Vista then I'm pretty certain that they don't have BVLOS authorization in their COA.

Chula Vista airspace seems to be a mixture of surface Class D and Class G under a Class B shelf.

View attachment 99311

I double checked and I did have it right. FAA granted permission to Chula Vista PD to fly BVLOS day or night from their rooftop. IMHO, this is the first step towards normalizing BVLOS flying by LEOs everywhere.

Chula Vista Police Approved for Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Drone Flights

The police department in Chula Vista, California is now the first public safety organization allowed to regularly fly drones beyond the visual line of sight (BV

insideunmannedsystems.com

 

[sar104]

I double checked and I did have it right. FAA granted permission to Chula Vista PD to fly BVLOS day or night from their rooftop. IMHO, this is the first step towards normalizing BVLOS flying by LEOs everywhere.

Chula Vista Police Approved for Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Drone Flights

The police department in Chula Vista, California is now the first public safety organization allowed to regularly fly drones beyond the visual line of sight (BV

insideunmannedsystems.com

Interesting - thanks for digging that up. They mention a collision avoidance system, which would certainly be an advantage. The FAA database shows that CVPD has a 107.29 daylight operations waiver, but no 107.31 VLOS waiver.

 

[011111110]

Actually what terrifies me about that article is this sentence:

"Drones from DJI have gone to 43 law enforcement agencies in 22 states to help ensure social distancing rules"

My own government is spying on me to make sure I don't go to the park and have a picnic with my family? That bothers me a lot more than the thought of China getting hold of my drone footage. A Whole Lot more.

 

[sar104]

Actually what terrifies me about that article is this sentence:

"Drones from DJI have gone to 43 law enforcement agencies in 22 states to help ensure social distancing rules"

My own government is spying on me to make sure I don't go to the park and have a picnic with my family? That bothers me a lot more than the thought of China getting hold of my drone footage. A Whole Lot more.

It's not "spying" if you are in a public place. And how is that any different to patrolling in a vehicle or a helicopter?

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

You can easily block DJI app access to the web on android while still allowing mapbox content to display. Spying or no spying, you're the master of your own device.

 

[011111110]

It's not "spying" if you are in a public place. And how is that any different to patrolling in a vehicle or a helicopter?

It's not, and that wasn't the point. What terrifies me is that they're "enforcing" social distancing rules by patrolling parks and other public areas at all - I don't care if they're using drones, helicopters, patrol cars, segues, or pogo sticks. The fact that I can't go to the park with my family who live with me, or out on the lake in a rowboat by myself, is a Real Problem for me.

Not to mention that little blurb in The Constitution about the government not interfering with the right of the people to peaceably assemble...

 

[sar104]

It's not, and that wasn't the point. What terrifies me is that they're "enforcing" social distancing rules by patrolling parks and other public areas at all - I don't care if they're using drones, helicopters, patrol cars, segues, or pogo sticks. The fact that I can't go to the park with my family who live with me, or out on the lake in a rowboat by myself, is a Real Problem for me.

But you can do those things - at least in most states - so why are you assuming that they are trying to stop you from doing that? What they are trying to combat is larger gatherings of people who don't live together, which is against the current rules in many places.

 

[011111110]

But you can do those things - at least in most states - so why are you assuming that they are trying to stop you from doing that? What they are trying to combat is larger gatherings of people who don't live together, which is against the current rules in many places.

I can, yes. But ask my brother in Lansing, MI about his trip to the park with his family. Or the man in (I think) South Dakota who received a citation for being out on a boat.

I just have a real problem with government overreach, is all.

 

[sar104]

I can, yes. But ask my brother in Lansing, MI about his trip to the park with his family. Or the man in (I think) South Dakota who received a citation for being out on a boat.

I just have a real problem with government overreach, is all.

I don't think a couple of anecdotes can be extrapolated to a broad accusation of government overreach. Are you arguing that the law is wrong, or that LE made a mistake?

 

[Jeff A]

Just checked Google Earth. The imagery for my house is from 2013. My old garden tractor I gave away 4 years ago is still there.

In Google Earth, click the little date box in the lower LH corner and a date slider will appear at the top left of the screen. You may or may not find a newer image of your property.

 

[sar104]

In Google Earth, click the little date box in the lower LH corner and a date slider will appear at the top left of the screen. You may or may not find a newer image of your property.

That only shows older imagery - the newest is the default view.

 

[Jeff A]

That only shows older imagery - the newest is the default view.

Not always. I have seen it otherwise more than a few times.