All pilots of real aircraft that I know are not only fine with being tracked, but the recognize that it is important to aviation safety. And yet there is this disturbingly prevalent attitude amongst hobby sUAS pilots that it's not only undesirable, but it that it infringes on some fictional rights.
you don't see pilots on pilot forums whining about aircraft being tracked, or arguing that ADS-B infringes on their constitutional rights. Why do you think that might be?
I am wondering if possibly you are not friends with enough pilots to have a valid random sample. Because DJI published a white paper in 2017 that suggests much pilot whining about their privacy rights. At least that is how I interpret it:
A DJI Technology Whitepaper “What’s In a Name?” A Call for a Balanced Remote Identification Approach (EXCERPTS)
March 22, 2017
We do not constantly track and record the location of motor vehicles, even though doing so would lead to near-perfect enforcement of motor vehicle laws (the violation of which costs lives each day). Manned aircraft are not subject to constant surveillance and tracking. In Class G airspace, which is much of the country, no flight plan is required, and radar may not be active to event detect the presence of the aircraft. In vast areas of the country, it is possible for a pilot to fly from one farm’s grass strip to another, and back again, without anyone else having access to that flight information including the identity of the pilot. Even when manned aircraft are close enough to be visually identified by their marked N number, the economics of aircraft ownership compel limited liability corporations (LLCs) to protect the identity of the owner. And even with the aircraft owner’s name in hand, it is not possible to learn who was flying the aircraft or why they were operating without making an inquiry with the owner.
A significant effort to protect against public dissemination of flight tracking data resulted in the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) program enabled by Congress in the April 2000 Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Pub. Law 106- 181, Section 729. In 2011, changes to the BARR program were considered in an FAA Notice of Proposed Modification to the June 1, 2006 MOA FAA/Subscriber Memorandum of Agreement for ASDI/NASSI Industry Access and Request for Comments, FAA docket number FAA-2011-0183.
FAA received approximately 630 written comments. In these comments, organizations such as NBAA and AOPA noted that making an aircraft’s use public compromises its value as a business tool and exposes competitively sensitive information. A selection of these comments are provided in Appendix B. Final guidance on this topic was published by the FAA in 2013.
Operators of unmanned aircraft have many of the same interest in privacy, and are poised to make even greater use of them as a business tool than manned aircraft which they now outnumber. Although UAS do not carry people, and so do not implicate free movement of people, identification information does indicate the location of the person operating the UAS, thus revealing the activities of persons and businesses.
The interest in privacy is, unfortunately, arguably heightened compared to manned aircraft considering the occasional violent confrontations that UAS operators have faced over the last few years, including physical assault and gunfire. A system that enables belligerent individuals to look up the name and address of, and then knock on the door of, a local UAS operator, is not acceptable and will detrimentally impact UAS operators who are operating safely and doing nothing wrong. The personal information of the owner (or operator) should be accessible to law enforcement only, who can investigate complaints of unlawful or dangerous conduct. Privacy and personal safety interests compel an identification system that protects operator business interests and discloses personally identifiable information only to law enforcement agencies.
Appendix B
Selections from Public Comments to FAA-2011-0183 (ALL FROM PILOTS OF MANNED AIRCRAFT)
“AOPA has significant concerns with the implications on an individual’s privacy, confidentiality, security and personal safety that could result from the proposed changes. Further, it appears the proposed FAA action is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist without due regard for the adverse impact it may have on private individual citizens because of the unnecessary release of personal information. AOPA has determined that the proposed changes are dangerous, invasive and unwarranted and the unintended negative implications are far reaching.”
- Melissa Rudinger, AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association)
“The FAA's newly proposed limitation ignores the legitimate need for the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) Program, and runs directly counter to long-established assumptions about government's role in the protection of privacy.”
- Melvin King, Honeywell Flight Operations
“I don't feel it is anyone else's business where we go. It is not only a privacy issue, but when it comes to business it is a competitive issue. The competition just does not need to know what we are doing. It is the same as tracking where you drive your car. George Orwell was right on.”
- Hal Shevers, Sportsman Market Inc.
“The principle concern among corporations is the safety and security of their employees. The change to the MOA, as proposed, would allow anyone who may have the desire to follow a person a mechanism through which they can do so real-time by tracking the movement of an aircraft. The safety and security implications for those persons would become unbounded by this type of information being made available to both the curious observer and those harboring illicit intentions. GAMA finds this to be unacceptable.”
- Jens Hening, GAMA
“Not only is this an unnecessary and irresponsible proposal, it sets a dangerous precedent for the privacy and safety of our customers. Here are a few examples of how this proposal would negatively impact people and businesses: It tramples citizens’ right to privacy; It facilitates electronic stalking by unknown third parties; It creates an unnecessary competitive vulnerability for American businesses; It singles out general aviation for punitive treatment. It remains illegal for Amtrak or the commercial airlines to make public the names of their passengers; It sets a precedent for the government to disclose any private data about individuals that it collects.”
- Dan Hinson, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation
“As a Chief Security Officer (CSO) for a Fortune 500 company, my primary concern with this regulation is the public facing information regarding where our senior employees travel from a security and risk perception (i.e., kidnap and ransom, sabotage, and competitive industrial espionage). Our corporation prides itself on ethics, corporate responsibility, and shareholder transparency and the current FAA rules demonstrate compliance in submitting flight plans. Where is the ‘National Security’ nexus between public record and compliance in confidence?”
- Pete Short
“As a matter of security for our employees we do not want public access to our aircraft status and routes. We have no objection to governmental or law enforcement access to this information, but see no practical value for the public access and in fact consider this a major security issue as it could alert ‘bad actors’ as to the location and plans for our aircraft.”
- David Barta, Cooper US
“Privacy of movement is a fundamental American value. I believe the federal government should, to the greatest extent possible, protect such information rather than transmit it to anyone in the world with a computer connection. With this proposal, the government is targeting for broadcast the movements of those individuals and companies who utilize general aviation airplanes, but the situation could just as easily involve individuals and companies who utilize an automobile with an EZ Pass. I do not believe there is any mode of transportation where the public dissemination of private movements is warranted.”
- Robert Moore, Hewlett-Packard
“It is completely un AMERICAN to have small planes tracked differently than cars. Why don't we track credit card use, bathroom use, and everything else. Komrade Sta
lin would be proud. Seriously, privacy is important. Please don't do this.”
- Jay Locke
“Eliminating an aircraft operator’s discretion to restrict real-time access to their aircraft whereabouts would be an inconsistent position with the government stance on similar data. If this change were to be enacted it could be argued that APIS or Secure Flight data should be similarly released so that all passenger manifests for private and airline flights to/from/within the United States should be released
for public scrutiny.”
- Daniel Baker, FlightAware
“…the Notice fails to identify any government interest whatsoever that would be advanced by preventing owners and operators of private aircraft from blocking the disclosure of flight track
ing information to unknown persons.”
- Edward Bolen, Jeffrey Shane, NBAA
“That the government would seek to undermine such a valuable safeguard without setting forth a compelling public policy rationale for doing so runs counter to the best interests of American business and the values and traditions of the Federal Government.”
- Michael McCormick, Global Business Travel Association
