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

[lookout]

My favorite part is when Kevin from the FAA acknoweldges there have been violent conflicts and says its because the public has bought into a narrative that drones are dangerous and an invasion of privacy except in the hands of a privileged few. Only thing is he stops there and does not go on to explain who all has been spinning the false narrative with such diligence and dedication.

Xjet was commenting on how shallow the questions were being answered.

 

[lookout]

Yes, pretty much in a nutshell. Remember that it was the FBI which hosted the secret demonstration of networked Remote ID for the FAA and their VIP friends and benefactors at FBI HQ in Quantico VA.

This seems to be the premise that rdq vs. Faa needed to hit on. The violations that had already occurred to get us to this point.

 

[Chip]

This seems to be the premise that rdq vs. Faa needed to hit on. The violations that had already occurred to get us to this point.

RDQ and its counsel Jonathan Rupprecht did an excellent job presenting the argument but were at an extreme disadvantage due to the very high standard or burden of proof they had to meet to invalidate the regulation in a "facial" as opposed to an "as applied" challenge and due to the "harmless error" doctine. The FAA's lawyer convinced the court that, even if the FAA broke the law by orchestrating a secret, off-the-record demonstration of network remote ID to VIPs with special interests, it was no harm no foul because the FAA decided to go a different direction. The problem with the court's analysis is that the entire process was supposed to be transparent. Transparency requires that the public know what options the public agency considered, and which ones they kept or discarded and for what reasons. If an agency blatantly violates the rules of transparency it inevitably undermines public confidence in the agency and the process which is why "no harm no foul" in this context is bogus. Can you imagine telling the FAA that yes I was flying 5 miles BVLOS with no remote ID or registration but its not like I hit anything or injured anyone so no harm no foul, right?

My understanding is the FAA's position has been shifting ever since and is now, of course we are planning to move to networked remote ID, how else are we supposed to implement our plan for SMART communities?

 

[lookout]

RDQ and its counsel Jonathan Rupprecht did an excellent job presenting the argument but were at an extreme disadvantage due to the very high standard or burden of proof they had to meet to invalidate the regulation in a "facial" as opposed to an "as applied" challenge and due to the "harmless error" doctine. The FAA's lawyer convinced the court that, even if the FAA broke the law by orchestrating a secret, off-the-record demonstration of network remote ID to VIPs with special interests, it was no harm no foul because the FAA decided to go a different direction. The problem with the court's analysis is that the entire process was supposed to be transparent. Transparency requires that the public know what options the public agency considered, and which ones they kept or discarded and for what reasons. If an agency blatantly violates the rules of transparency it inevitably undermines public confidence in the agency and the process which is why "no harm no foul" in this context is bogus. Can you imagine telling the FAA that yes I was flying 5 miles BVLOS with no remote ID or registration but its not like I hit anything or injured anyone so no harm no foul, right?

My understanding is the FAA's position has been shifting ever since and is now, of course we are planning to move to networked remote ID, how else are we supposed to implement our plan for SMART communities?

There's one judge that has said that secret meetings constitute how illegal they were and extends into what was accomplished. Broadcast remote id was a subset of network remote id, it's practically the same thing, different method.

The fbis drones were capable of electronic espionage as well as visual surveillance. So apply the past consideration to the present application of remote id and they'll be collecting that secretly also. Just think that Karen might be recording the flight or one of faas contractors. Could be the fbi themselves onsite.

 

[brett8883]

@Chip I’m glad to see you in on this conversation. Are you aware of any laws that would make it illegal to transmit spoofed RID data? I’m assuming if it’s used in the furtherance of a crime that there would be some existing law that could apply. But since RID is on open frequencies and completely unprotected, what laws would you think prosecutors would use if there’s no evidence that any other illegal activity has occurred?

Seems like it could even be a First Amendment thing. If the government is trying to say that remote ID transmissions are voluntarily being broadcast to the public I would think there’s some argument to be made that a fake broadcast is protected speech. After all if transmitting, fake information was illegal there would be a lot of people on TikTok that deserve enforcement actions.

 

[mavic3usa]

This is probably why LEO want RID. I don't know the laws exactly in every country but, not knowing all the details, I don't think this is highly illegal but it is likely questionable and it is a bit foolish and if the authorities wanted, they can find something (because there are so many drones laws available). Still, the Mini3Pro might be found but this could be the Mini2 and LEO still may not be able to locate the pilot.

 

[mobilehomer]

This is probably why LEO want RID. I don't know the laws exactly in every country but, not knowing all the details, I don't think this is highly illegal but it is likely questionable and it is a bit foolish and if the authorities wanted, they can find something (because there are so many drones laws available). Still, the Mini3Pro might be found but this could be the Mini2 and LEO still may not be able to locate the pilot.

This video is from Essex, UK. HIGHLY illegal. The pilot knows nothing of CCA laws.

 

[mobilehomer]

RID spoofing would probably be treated the same as disguising license plates to fool readers. Illegal

 

[mavic3usa]

This video is from Essex, UK. HIGHLY illegal. The pilot knows nothing of CCA laws.

Ok, what about if someone did that in the USA?

 

[brett8883]

RID spoofing would probably be treated the same as disguising license plates to fool readers. Illegal

Well first of all there are specific laws that address license plates. States have their own laws that address that issue and they are all somewhat different but they all specifically refer to license plates and wouldn’t apply to RID.

We would need to find some law specifically on this issue or some broad catch all.

 

[Davros007]

It makes me no sense to me to even worry about this if you fly in a legal and safe (responsible) manner. That said, to answer your question, I'm pretty sure the FCC would see it as a violation, and find some obscure code number to cite. If you're intention is to obscure your location, to make it difficult to determine your location to Karen, it would be doing the same thing to them. I believe anything you do to intentionally slow their locating your correct position, including mixing in a bunch of random data, they would take issue with.

There are plenty of reasons why one may want to not disclose one’s exact position. Whilst I have, in my country, no major issues with my position being disclosed to authorities, I would have major issues with it being disclosed to other parties.
To this end, if it was legal to scramble my position I definitely would. If that causes “consternation” to authorities or others, they can honestly “go have a cry”. On the other hand, I do not want to actually break laws. On that note, back to the OP, does anyone know what, if any, laws may be broken?
This I think outlines possible violations, in fact it is very interesting:

 

[Chip]

@Chip I’m glad to see you in on this conversation. Are you aware of any laws that would make it illegal to transmit spoofed RID data? I’m assuming if it’s used in the furtherance of a crime that there would be some existing law that could apply. But since RID is on open frequencies and completely unprotected, what laws would you think prosecutors would use if there’s no evidence that any other illegal activity has occurred?

Seems like it could even be a First Amendment thing. If the government is trying to say that remote ID transmissions are voluntarily being broadcast to the public I would think there’s some argument to be made that a fake broadcast is protected speech. After all if transmitting, fake information was illegal there would be a lot of people on TikTok that deserve enforcement actions.

I think that spoofing, as in planting a device that sends signals to intentionally trick people into believing a swarm of drones is flying around, is potentially a serious crime depending on specific facts and circumstances. If such a device can be readily built or bought, then the FAA may have created a worse problem than what they were trying to solve just like the guy in video says. What I am unclear on, is whether anyone with access to the FAA drone registration database could quickly verify whether any signal is linked to a real person. My hunch is that a spoofer might fool a cell phone app but not someone with immediate access to registration ID. What do you think on this?

As far as the First Amendment, I would say that right to spoof is a stretch especially if motive is not to express view or opinion but to cause fear, disturbance, chaos or panic. At a minimum, it could be reckless endangerment. If it disrupts an airport or any commercial flight, I would think potentially very serious.

Yes, this is very interesting video. If what he says is true, then spoofing is potentially huge problem unless query to FAA drone registration database can instantly sort the real from the fake.

This I think outlines possible violations, in fact it is very interesting:

 

[JL_Ware]

dont worry,CNN will come up with segment that explaines how “americans” now can fight “evil drones”by downloading app ,locating and attacking evil pilots….first time i get approached and yelled by some looney is the time i start taking off from my home roof and simply go bvlos…faa can fine me,i dont care

Personally, If I were too get attacked by some looney tune who was able to track me by a RID App, I would try to sue the FAA for creating such a stupid law, it's like broadcasting that you're driving an exotic car, and the location where to find you

 

[lookout]

I think that spoofing, as in planting a device that sends signals to intentionally trick people into believing a swarm of drones is flying around, is potentially a serious crime depending on specific facts and circumstances. If such a device can be readily built or bought, then the FAA may have created a worse problem than what they were trying to solve just like the guy in video says. What I am unclear on, is whether anyone with access to the FAA drone registration database could quickly verify whether any signal is linked to a real person. My hunch is that a spoofer might fool a cell phone app but not someone with immediate access to registration ID. What do you think on this?

As far as the First Amendment, I would say that right to spoof is a stretch especially if motive is not to express view or opinion but to cause fear, disturbance, chaos or panic. At a minimum, it could be reckless endangerment. If it disrupts an airport or any commercial flight, I would think potentially very serious.

Yes, this is very interesting video. If what he says is true, then spoofing is potentially huge problem unless query to FAA drone registration database can instantly sort the real from the fake.

This non utm broadcast unit breaks the whole concept. If it were utm like they wanted it, it would be checked instantly. But utm is worse than broadcast.

Spoofing might be an option to be legal, yet keep the wolves away. But only a couple of modules were even keeping up with where the drone was, but controller position is still more likely what people will be interested in and they won't need to look you up in the faa eyewash registry. So in a way, it's like a bumper sticker instead of a license plate. How's my flying? [Removed by ADMIN]

 

[lookout]

Deeplinks Blog

www.eff.org

What were the police using drones for? Something not in their routine duties.

According to the report, 93 law enforcement agencies from across the state deployed drones 1,171 times in 2020—with an accumulative price tag of almost $1 million. The report shows that the vast majority of the drone deployments are not used for the public safety disasters that so many departments use to justify drone use. Rather, almost half (506) were just for the purpose of “training officers.” Other uses included information collection based on reasonable suspicion of unspecified crimes (185), requests from other government agencies unrelated to law enforcement (41), road crash investigation (39), and preparation for and monitoring of public events (6 and 12, respectively). There were zero deployments to counter the risk of terrorism. Police deployed drones 352 times in the aftermath of an “emergency” and 27 times for “disaster” response.

Maybe they are more worried about tracking other drones and requiring remote id?

 

[msinger]

If such a device can be readily built or bought, then the FAA may have created a worse problem than what they were trying to solve just like the guy in video says

As someone with a lot of software development experience, I can tell you something like this could be easily built in just a few days.

My hunch is that a spoofer might fool a cell phone app but not someone with immediate access to registration ID. What do you think on this?

Right, anyone with access to the registration information should be able to find fake registration IDs and maybe single out the ones registered some distance away from the flying location. But, I guess that all goes out the window if the spoofer is not flying near their home town.

 

[lookout]

As someone with a lot of software development experience, I can tell you something like this could be easily built in just a few days.


Right, anyone with access to the registration information should be able to find fake registration IDs and maybe single out the ones registered some distance away from the flying location. But, I guess that all goes out the window if the spoofer is not flying near their home town.

Or if you were conveniently provided with builtin rid and didn't remember to register it.

 

[Skydreamer]

Take “pilot location “out of rid app or build app where only LE can have access to “pilot location “ and there is no need for spoofing……it make sense so i know that faa as government agency will not do anything about it

 

[Chip]

As someone with a lot of software development experience, I can tell you something like this could be easily built in just a few days.


Right, anyone with access to the registration information should be able to find fake registration IDs and maybe single out the ones registered some distance away from the flying location. But, I guess that all goes out the window if the spoofer is not flying near their home town.

Okay, then XJet makes a valid point, that the FAA may have created a bigger problem than they were trying to solve. This could create panic and chaos at airports,sporting events and elsewhere. Unless the law enforcement or other authorized parties can automatically check FAA drone registration database and screen out fakes. I cannot imagine the public at large being given access to FAA database. Of course, who knows how secure the FAA database is anyway.

The legality of drone spoofing may be more complicated than I thought at first blush if it tricks the general public but not law enforcement or arguably anyone with a legitimate right and need to know real from fake.

 

[Chip]

This takes us right to the question of what is the need for broadcasting signal and location to the general public? My thinking has been because if you publicly broadcast your own location and activity, then you waive any reasonable expectation of privacy which means you can be freely intercepted, monitored and recorded. @brett8883, this stemmed in part from your discovery of that government document questioning whether drone tracking was illegal interception of electronic signal.