Just curious, but why are people so anti Remote I. D.

[Chip]

Just having a cell phone powered on means that you are being tracked by pinging the cell towers.

That is true. But if law enforcement wants to monitor the pings or access the records they will likely require a subpoena or search warrant. Let us not forget that the FAA conducted a secret "off the record" demonstration of networked Remote ID to a special set of VIPs including corporate benefactors and law enforcement in Quantico, Virginia. The FAA ultimately admitted it was wrong to conduct a secret off the record demonstration but told the public we decided not to go networked (at least not now) so what do you care? The parties and counsel who sued the FAA over Remote ID did an excellent job forcing the FAA to produce relevant documents despite the FAA dodging, stonewalling and dragging their feet the whole way.

 

[ericole]

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?

I never said I was afraid, I was merely agreeing with the point and reason of another poster. Because of the work that I do, and the access to certain types of information that affords me, I am VERY aware of what can be done with information - even when others don't see the concern.

I actually have an original Mavic Pro, so I don't have the feature on my drone and have no plans to add on a device any time soon for that.

 

[ericole]

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.

I know that happens with cell phones, but the original comment didn't say it that way - thus my question for clarification.

 

[Gizmov]

I never said I was afraid, I was merely agreeing with the point and reason of another poster. Because of the work that I do, and the access to certain types of information that affords me, I am VERY aware of what can be done with information - even when others don't see the concern.

I actually have an original Mavic Pro, so I don't have the feature on my drone and have no plans to add on a device any time soon for that.

I agree with you. My mini 2 ,to my understanding is the only mini not equipped with the chip. Sub 250, no RID, Smart Controller not 107, no plans to change or add a thing .

 

[PyroProdigy]

That is true. But if law enforcement wants to monitor the pings or access the records they will likely require a subpoena or search warrant. Let us not forget that the FAA conducted a secret "off the record" demonstration of networked Remote ID to a special set of VIPs including corporate benefactors and law enforcement in Quantico, Virginia. The FAA ultimately admitted it was wrong to conduct a secret off the record demonstration but told the public we decided not to go networked (at least not now) so what do you care? The parties and counsel who sued the FAA over Remote ID did an excellent job forcing the FAA to produce relevant documents despite the FAA dodging, stonewalling and dragging their feet the whole way.

Police do it every single day with cell phones, warrantless with Geo Fencing and stingrays.....
They *may* but do not always get a warrant for the geo fence but not for every single cell phone they intercept with it in the fence area.

And with the case of stingrays they do it all the time without warrants then find their "evidence" for a warrant later. They work backwards basically. They would never admit to this however but it's done a lot.

 

[Elwarpo]

Did you arrive in a time machine from the eighties. lol thats about the time that privacy thing started to fade.
I think around 2020 they got you pretty much 24-7. Depending on what you do or when you leave your house there is a video record of it if you combine the thousands of camera videos that captured you. what you do online,what TV shows you watch,where you shop.....Its all recorded daily and in many cases sold by companies like Walmart to other retailers wishing to form a customer basis or research trends. The time you spent flying your Drone would be the only time "they" couldnt find you! lol

How about this question... can the government prove why I need to be tracked?

Privacy is not hard or time consuming. My car has no internet, cameras use certain frequencies to do facial recognition which is easy to confuse, cell phone has location off and the tracking apps removed (phone was rooted), and cookies/history deleted, VPN disguises my online ID... There is something called the 4th amendment, you are allowed privacy from the government. Not paranoid, just not interested in the government knowing my every move. I can not stop my private info from getting out but I can slow and confuse it.

Just like gun registries have not stopped crime or led to any arrests, so do drone IDs.

Now what would be good is automatic drone IDs that only turn on when in restricted space (near airport, over a military base...).

Why should I be tracked if I am recreational flying a drone in my back yard?

 

[MS Coast]

Just like gun registries have not stopped crime or led to any arrests, so do drone IDs.

Discussions of firearms aren't appropriate here and I won't discuss this further. But, please look up the Brady Bill and the effect it had on firearm violence. The bill was enacted in response to John Hinkley, Jr. shooting President Ronald Reagan and White House Press Secretary James Brady and provided for background checks and waiting periods before purchases. Among other things, it stopped tens of thousands of convicted felons from purchasing firearms.

 

[hank970]

How about this question... can the government prove why I need to be tracked?

Privacy is not hard or time consuming. My car has no internet, cameras use certain frequencies to do facial recognition which is easy to confuse, cell phone has location off and the tracking apps removed (phone was rooted), and cookies/history deleted, VPN disguises my online ID... There is something called the 4th amendment, you are allowed privacy from the government. Not paranoid, just not interested in the government knowing my every move. I can not stop my private info from getting out but I can slow and confuse it.

Just like gun registries have not stopped crime or led to any arrests, so do drone IDs.

Now what would be good is automatic drone IDs that only turn on when in restricted space (near airport, over a military base...).

Why should I be tracked if I am recreational flying a drone in my back yard?

Why do you assume that the government would be interested in tracking anyone's innocent enjoyment of a toy in their own back yard? It's not as if there were enough government receivers or personnel available to capture every limited-range RID transmission and to monitor drone use at-large. The purpose of RID isn't to permit the monitoring of peaceful, lawful use. Rather, it's intended to help identify those drones and operators who have been suspected of breaking the law or perceived to have engaged in intrusive behaviors, etc.

Is it effective? I don't know. Are records of gun sales used to solve crimes? Absolutely. It isn't just hardened criminals with untraceable firearms who commit crimes

Reread the 4th Amendment. Its strictures don't apply to persons or property in plain view. If a car thief proudly displays a stolen car in his front yard, it's not protected by the 4th Amendment. If he hides a stolen car in his closed garage, then the authorities would need to obtain a search warrant to search the garage.

Similarly, if you fly your drone in the nation's public airspace, even above your own back yard, your drone is not entitled to 4th Amendment protections. If flying your drone in your back yard flying is deemed to be intrusive behavior by neighbors whose teenaged daughter is sunbathing in the adjacent back yard, they don't need to have an RID receiver to identify you. They already know who you are.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, you sound paranoid. The government isn't remotely interested in your every move.

 

[mavic3usa]

Despite your protestations to the contrary, you sound paranoid. The government isn't remotely interested in your every move.

I agree. Then would you partner with me to sponsor support a federal law that prohibits all state and local government from capturing, tracking, or collecting any RID information from a drone transmitting anywhere in the NAS without probable cause to suspect the drone and/or operator is committing a crime and doing so without PC is a federal crime? That way we make sure to keep the government and their actions transparent and honest and if there are rogue elements within the government who somehow get interested in "your every move" they'll be subject to arrest and/or civil penalties. Agreed?

 

[MS Coast]

I agree. Then would you partner with me to sponsor a federal law

I hadn't realized that you are a member of Congress. Senate or House?

 

[mavic3usa]

I hadn't realized that you are a member of Congress. Senate or House?

fixed it.
reason: nitpicking

do you support it?

 

[hank970]

fixed it.
reason: nitpicking

do you support it?

I wouldn't support it because I don't perceive a threat and I don't think there's a need for such a law. My sense is that, though my drone is broadcasting an RID signal, nobody is listening. For sure, the government lacks the resources to listen on any meaningful scale.

 

[mavic3usa]

I wouldn't support it because I don't perceive a threat and I don't think there's a need for such a law. My sense is that, though my drone is broadcasting an RID signal, nobody is listening. For sure, the government lacks the resources to listen on any meaningful scale.

Ok that's what I thought. We know no one is listening. The bill wouldn't be in response because "someone is listening." That's short-sighted. The forward-looking bill makes sure it won't happen sometime in the future when the scenario changes because that's the right thing to do, correct? We shouldn't always be 2-steps behind when it comes to legislation, we can get ahead of this.

It is rumored that Anchorage already has RID monitors set up to listen for drone activity city-wide. It won't be long before *everyone* has the technology and the will/desire and AI makes it readily available to every government entity big or small and "resources" is only 1990s ancient history excuses; it's 2025, "resources" is not a thing.

We know this is coming, every government has determined the federal government is weak and powerless and has failed when it comes to protecting the community against rogue drones and it is without a doubt they're going to do something about it; and I support that as long as they focus on the criminals and leave the honest law-abiding citizen alone. So would you oppose a bill if one were introduced to make sure it doesn't happen, the make sure the government can't abuse RID?