R.I.D. Spoofing and is it legal?

[Vic Moss]

@Vic Moss

Could you pass this along to your FAA contacts?

Being familiar with some of the concepts of software development, the following needs to happen:

As a result of the network remote ID and its' association with the UTM being dropped some time ago for logistical reasons, and unfeasible at this time, some of the elements of this specification needs to be updated for the broadcast remote ID modules. It does not need to include most of the specification of the network remote ID modules, and thus needs to be dropped from the broadcast remote ID modules. The only thing that needs to be broadcast from the broadcast remote ID modules, is a serial number from the block of serial numbers as it is now, and it is the only thing that needs to be broadcast. Nothing else.

If you expect us to take this for identification only purposes, then it needs to more accurately reflect that purpose. You need to be reasonable and not so sloppy in your processes so that they become something besides what you say it is. We do not need all of the extra payload from the network remote ID modules to be on the broadcast remote ID modules. As it stands right now, there is nothing that distinguishes a network remote ID module from a broadcast remote ID.

On behalf of the drone community, we will not be complying with remote ID as it stands until these corrections are made to your specifications. Fair enough? If you want us to comply with this demand, it needs to be reasonable, which right now, it is not.

The way the RID Final Rule is written, it can't be changed that drastically.

Doing this would take a rewrite of § 89.315, where the message element requirements are codified. That would literally take an act of Congress, and since this was their baby to begin with, that's not happen. Or, it would take lawsuit to find RID unconstitutional, and that's already been tried. RDQ lost at their attempt to do this.

RID is here, that's the upshot of the conversation. Compliance will be minimal at first, and likely only become more compliant as older drones are no longer used, and they are replaced by RID compliant drones. Many folks are already there.

Of all the drones in my fleet, only the P4PV2s aren't RID compliant yet, but they will be by the end of the year. And I'm even replacing them with Mavc 3 Es.

I will be in Baltimore all week at the FAA Symposium, and RID will be a very common topic of discussion. We'll see where this goes.

 

[lookout]

The way the RID Final Rule is written, it can't be changed that drastically.

Doing this would take a rewrite of § 89.315, where the message element requirements are codified. That would literally take an act of Congress, and since this was their baby to begin with, that's not happen. Or, it would take lawsuit to find RID unconstitutional, and that's already been tried. RDQ lost at their attempt to do this.

RID is here, that's the upshot of the conversation. Compliance will be minimal at first, and likely only become more compliant as older drones are no longer used, and they are replaced by RID compliant drones. Many folks are already there.

Of all the drones in my fleet, only the P4PV2s aren't RID compliant yet, but they will be by the end of the year. And I'm even replacing them with Mavc 3 Es.

I will be in Baltimore all week at the FAA Symposium, and RID will be a very common topic of discussion. We'll see where this goes.

Let us know how it goes!

 

[Cafguy]

Let us know how it goes!

Watch my NEW thread RID A-Z from the Master
ALSO here is a class : Moderators I am not sure if it is really Kosher to be posting this So please delete if you feel it prudent

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cafguy]

I Made one. ! FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES ONLY ! and I WOULD NEVER put it on a drone -BUT They work as described and I would say in their current state they are probably legal. WHY? Mine was placed on top of a box in the middle of a Football field with absolutely NO obstructions and Without the antenna mod (yikes) I get about 50 to 60 yrds. of Range SO there's that.

 

[mavic3usa]

Have we posted this one yet?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[msinger]

Have we posted this one yet?

You can find lots of existing threads if you search for "Mile High Drone Services". For example:

Remote ID Receiver Back in Stock

I own Mile High Drone Services which is based in Colorado. We are making Bare Bones Remote ID Receivers and we just released version 2.4 of the firmware. Here is what 2.4 does: 1. Supports multiple drones in the air (up to 64) 2. Shows a QR code that you can scan with the phone to get more...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Chip]

I would say in their current state they are probably legal.

Yes, I would guess the spoofer is a product which is legal to buy, sell, own or posess. The question is whether it can be legally used in conjunction with a drone required to transmit remote ID for purposes of intentionally hiding or obfuscating the true location of the drone and the pilot. I would guess the answer is likely no because it would violate the intent of the law.

 

[Chip]

There may be a rough analogy of sorts to radar detectors which are legal in some states but illegal in others if they are merely within reach of the driver and therefore might be used to evade the law. In Virginia for example I gather that it is illegal to operate a vehicle that is equipped with any type of device, passive or active, used to detect any mechanism employed by police officers to measure the speed of vehicles for law enforcement purposes. So if the device had no power source and was not readily accessible by anyone in the car while driving, then the person is not guilty of the offense. You can have radar detector in your vehicle; you just can’t have access to it while you’re driving.

 

[mavic3usa]

There may be a rough analogy of sorts to radar detectors which are legal in some states but illegal in others if they are merely within reach of the driver and therefore might be used to evade the law. In Virginia for example I gather that it is illegal to operate a vehicle that is equipped with any type of device, passive or active, used to detect any mechanism employed by police officers to measure the speed of vehicles for law enforcement purposes. So if the device had no power source and was not readily accessible by anyone in the car while driving, then the person is not guilty of the offense. You can have radar detector in your vehicle; you just can’t have access to it while you’re driving.

VA is the only state where radar detectors are illegal and even if you have one in your possession and they find out, it will likely be taken. So it's a bad example because none of this would be based on any facts since a radar detector only picks up signal and nothing more; there is no legal basis which connect you with any intent to break any laws since many people use them and drive the speed limit all the time. Of course, radar detectors are illegal all across Canada but only because there's no freedom in Canada.

 

[Chip]

VA is the only state where radar detectors are illegal and even if you have one in your possession and they find out, it will likely be taken. So it's a bad example because none of this would be based on any facts since a radar detector only picks up signal and nothing more; there is no legal basis which connect you with any intent to break any laws since many people use them and drive the speed limit all the time. Of course, radar detectors are illegal all across Canada but only because there's no freedom in Canada.

I think you may have misunderstood what I decsribed as "a rough analogy of sorts." In Virginia, its not illegal to own or possess a radar detector. Unless its in the driver's area where it could be used to evade traffic laws. The analogy is its not illegal to own or possess a GPS spoofer either but using it to hide, confuse, or obfuscate the location of a drone and its pilot to evade remote ID law could be.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think you may have misunderstood what I decsribed as "a rough analogy of sorts." In Virginia, its not illegal to own or possess a radar detector. Unless its in the driver's area where it could be used to evade traffic laws. The analogy is its not illegal to own or possess a GPS spoofer either but using it to hide, confuse, or obfuscate the location of a drone and its pilot to evade remote ID law could be.

I get it but I put these items on par with other items that are demonized just for having them. If you try to buy a radar detector online and you list the shipping address in VA, it won't be sent. Well, that's a defacto ban on possession even though you can drive to the store, purchase it, bring it home, and you won't be arrested if they find it on your kitchen table still in the box. The VA doesn't ban ownership but the item is "demonized" because of it's apparent intended "nefarious" usage. Just like having a silencer means you intend to secretly shoot someone illegally or having body armor means you intend to protect yourself from police bullets while you commit crimes; crazy stuff. I suggest the spoofer will eventually fall into the same category. If you have a set of lock picking tools in your trunk, in some states depending on the totality of the circumstances, you could be arrested and not having broken into a single dwelling....yet. The ultimate intent is going to eventually be irrelevant. But yeah, I get your analogy....but it's still early.

 

[msinger]

Just like having a silencer means you intend to secretly shoot someone illegally or having body armor means you intend to protect yourself from police bullets while you commit crimes

I think these examples are a bit different. If someone has a spoofer and turns it on, all it can do is generate fake drone traffic. There are no other alternative uses cases -- other than an expensive paperweight maybe.

 

[anotherlab]

There are two kinds of spoofing that could be done here. There is GPS spoofing, where your drone reports a different location. INAL, but that would probably be illegal as it would be violating the rule of the RID regulation. The other spoofing would be a device that broadcasts fake RID data. Fake operator, fake drone, fake flight path.

Your drone's RID data gets mixed in with other data, making it harder to zero in on a single drone or pilot. That would be more of a gray area but could end up being illegal as going against the intent of the RID regulation.

 

[msinger]

The other spoofing would be a device that broadcasts fake RID data

This is the one being discussed in this thread

 

[Cafguy]

I would think that if you made one with any sort of USEFULL range- They would more than likely Put there foot down. I I'm almost sure that the Gov. Knows all about this, and like us, have not found a reliable way for these things too operate with a range more than a block or two . I would never use one. I don't really see the point( And I am in security). BUT it was a fun and informative Experience.

 

[Skydreamer]

anyone knows what the broadcast range of RID is in lets say mavic 3 or mini 3…..are we talking about 5 miles or 100 feet?is there certain broadcast range required by FAA,if yes than what is the minimum range?