And you are posting this how? Theoretically there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. Practically, I would say drop all but the "no expectation of privacy " part. You are surveilled by every move/sound or electron sent, 24/7 for life.
Just curious, but why are people so anti Remote I. D.
- Thread starter AnDronioBanderos
- Start date
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
Because (depending on jurisdiction) the RID broadcast has to include the location of the drone controller and therefore the pilot. There are very few instances that you HAVE to broadcast your home address in plain to anyone who happens to have an app on a phone, which you’d be doing if you start up a drone at home. Certainly in the UK you expect to have the right of privacy in your own home unless you’re doing something illegal. Which I’m not.
In 1980 you could go to your local library and there were resources where you'd grab a book, open it up, find a name and it would tell you where they lived, who lived with them, if they were married, had kids, the kids names, their occupation, their home value, their salary, etc.
Not joking.
NOTHING about you is truly private.
Not joking.
NOTHING about you is truly private.
Over here we some choice in what is published about us, which ‘directories’ and what is contained in them. Yes, I’m on the redacted electoral roll so I can vote but my data not sold, my home phone is ex-directory so not listed. Even as a school governor (a voluntary elected role) my contact details would not be public knowledge. This would often be the same for local politicians. We don’t have the right to know the salary of others even within our company, but we’ll have an idea of grade and seniority. Yes, I understand how data is collected about me which is why I do all I can to obfuscate, confuse and block that data collection.
That's not true. You're taking it out of the context. Read the 4th amendment and then tell me if the government has a right to take your fingerprints or take a retina scan or run your face thru a face recognition camera or read the barcode on your driver's license (without your consent or PC) just because you dare to come out in the public. Expectation of privacy is a legal term, it doesn't mean what you think. People expect to keep the inside of their pants pockets private from anyone when they are walking down the public sidewalk. And, some people expect the serial number on their drone to not be forced to openly reveal it to any regular person who wants it just because you are flying your drone in the public NAS. One day, that aspect might be reviewed.
I'm ok with LEO and the government having legitimate access to RID. I am not ok with Karen having access to RID. I am set-ok with companies like Google having access to RID with consent from the owner. that's where I stand.
In the video that I posted earlier, we were told the city has detectors spread out all over the area so anytime anyone flies a drone in the city limits, the city government will detect it and store that information and they might even sell it.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
By operating a drone with RID, you have already given consent for your information to be broadcast.
The decision in Brennon v. Dickson ruled that RID does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The court stated that flying a drone in open air is a public activity, similar to driving a car on public roads. Since the activity is observable by anyone, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the drone's location.
The mere capability for surveillance does not violate Fourth Amendment protections.
Only the FAA has access to the database that correlates the serial number with the owner's identity, and that information can only be accessed under specific, limited circumstances.
That all depends on where you live, and how you do things online. There are plenty of ways to hide your presence online, and if you are watching OTA broadcasts, and not using a smart TV, no one is tracking that.
No, it certainly does not. But it does mean that it's unlikely to happen to you tomorrow. Or the next day.
On my fear radar, a dangerous assailant (or woman who speaks to me loudly) using a RID drone tracking app is far, far less of a concern than being gored by a White-tailed Deer downtown.
Again, I'm fine with the government having RID and just like with license plates, simply broadcasting is not a 4th amendment violation (like the other examples I mentioned, not RID) but when the government goes to use it, we'll see. I don't believe sharing this information with the public is a good idea justified by no reasonable expectation of privacy. Same way if the government opened up the auto license plate database to the public so they could "identify the car's location as well as the driver's location." Still not a big fan of big companies having that data, too. We'll have another lawsuit if needed as this evolves (when we start getting into warrantless searches, the collection and storage of data and ultimately using RID against us during the upcoming ban). Stay tuned.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 2,135
- Reactions
- 2,649
This is good point. During oral argument in Brennan v Dickson, DC federal appellate Judge Robert Wilkins made it clear he thought it was absurd to force hobby drone flyers to broadcast their locations when flying on private property away from urban areas, below 400 feet, especially if property is fenced. But he said the regulation must be upheld if there is any scenario when and where it would NOT violate the Fourth Amendment. It is the difference between challenging a regulation as unconstitutional per se and challenging it as its applied to a specific individual in a particular circumstance. So, the FAA patted itself on the back big time for their win but the playing field was titled at a 45 degree angle in its favor from the beginning. Wilkins voted with the majority but he spelled out why during oral argument.
Interesting side note: Before he became a judge, Judge Wilkins sued the Maryland State Patrol for a highway drug interdiction program which instructed troopers to pull over drivers based on their presence on a particular section of highway, whether car was rented, and race of the driver. So, he was not arrested, but was stopped and questioned while driving on the way to a funeral with his family in a rental car. The written policy specified race which made it unconstitutional per se.
In this case no. If I’m taking pictures with my drone there’s this buzzy thing flying above the area. If I’m using an SLR I’ll be putting the thing to my face or it’ll be on a tripod. They are obviously being used to take pictures/videos. I’ve watched all kinds of people(often Karens), sometimes at parties or gatherings, surreptitiously wandering around, mobile in hand,filming, but not obviously. Only obvious if you get a glimpse of the screen, they’ll be constantly glancing at it so that they make sure they get the shot to go on faceplant or whatever social media they inhabit.
I know how intrusive mobile phones are, the data that streams from them constantly giving position, and the apps crafted oh so carefully, to capture and disseminate information on likes, dislikes. No one ever shuts apps down so they are all capturing data off each other and selling it. The mobile phone companies even encourage people not to close apps down because that will ‘shorten battery life’.
Cafguy
Well-Known Member
Changing the timeline doesn’t change the concern. Nothing has happened until it has. Once it has then it inevitably happens more and the genie never goes back in the bottle.
There's no change in the timeline. Eighteen months have gone by and there have been no reports of violence against drone pilots or even a nosey woman yelling at drone pilots after locating them with RID. How long will you have to wait without a wave of RID-enabled violence until your fear subsides? Two years? Ten years?
Instead, why not worry about a commercial air carrier you're flying on being knocked down by a drone? There's been an example of a drone/aircraft collision discussed here recently?
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
Sure, anything is possible. But is it likely? A "Karen" is more likely to call the cops on someone flying a drone than using an app to get the serial number of a drone.
It's far more likely that someone will fly a drone where they are not supposed to be flying in and and will interfere with first responders. Because that has happened since RID was mandated.
Just having a cell phone powered on means that you are being tracked by pinging the cell towers.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Mavic 2 Pro / RM500 stopping, maps and connection issues
- Started by Urrad
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
