Remote ID function for FAA

SmilingOgre · Jan 4, 2023

lookout said:
If you're in a hot tub you might have some protection, but if you was skinny dipping and you get out while it's overhead...might be another problem.

Yup, and it might be worse for the drone pilot than the dipper. There are things I prefer to never see. One could spend years in therapy with their drone trying to erase the memory.

Chip · Jan 4, 2023

msinger said:
DJI Aeroscope might be a good fit in some cases, but it's only able to detect (most) DJI drones. And it's not detecting them by scanning for Remote ID broadcasts as most of the drones it currently detects do not broadcast Remote ID data.

I am not sure I follow you. Do DJI drones not emit radio signals right now that allow anyone with the right equipment and access to registration database to ID pilot and monitor and record flight? In the Race Day Quad case, my recollection is the FAA lawyer told the court that Remote ID will provide no information which is not already accessible to anyone with the right equipment.

Chip · Jan 4, 2023

lookout said:
The court ruled that since faa wasn't collecting that it wasn't a violation of fourth amendment, so when they implement this we should drag the faa and their (sub)contractors back into the courtroom.

Yes, good point. The FAA won by arguing all the regulation does is force drone pilots to mount a module on their drone. The FAA was very careful to say nothing specific about how signal data would be collected, stored, accessed or used and by who and for what purpose. The court made very clear that it was not addressing those issues in any way. Its the big difference between a legal challenge based on "facial validity" and a legal challenge based on how law is "applied" in a particular case. Excerpt from court opinion below:

"Brennan’s pre-enforcement Fourth Amendment claim seeks wholesale vacatur of the Remote ID Rule, so we understand him to be challenging the Rule’s facial validity—an unusual but not unheard-of type of Fourth Amendment claim. To prevail, Brennan “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [rule] would be valid.” Identifying potential applications of the rule that could be unlawful is not enough."

"Where a challenged rule does not exceed statutory authority and comports with the APA, “we will uphold the provision and preserve the right of complainants to bring as-applied challenges against any alleged unlawful applications.”

"We likewise express no opinion on the potential viability of any as-applied Fourth Amendment challenge to specific applications of the Remote ID Rule. We thus do not foreclose the possibility of a declaratory judgment or injunctive action by a party establishing that application of the Remote ID Rule to its own specifically delineated drone uses would subject it to an unconstitutional privacy deprivation."

lookout · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
I am not sure I follow you. Do DJI drones not emit radio signals right now that allow anyone with the right equipment and access to registration database to ID pilot and monitor and record flight? In the Race Day Quad case, my recollection is the FAA lawyer told the court that Remote ID will provide no information which is not already accessible to anyone with the right equipment.

The faa didn't consider dji aeroscope because it was too cost prohibitive for the average non aviation tattle tale with a yuppy smart phone could get access to or afford. Even though it probably does everything it would need to do (and probably a lot better than the faas implementation). Another problem is that it is dji proprietary.

lookout · Jan 5, 2023

Even though there were delays and extensions to timeliness and what not, the faa is still wanting the September 2022 and September 2023 dates even though 18 and 30 months is October. It was March and then April but it is like they think despite the one month delay that they can still go on the original March effective date, even though that was changed to April. And they are only honoring December 2022 at their discretion even with possible compliance actions still in play. Can't even honor their own effective dates. Do they really expect this campaign to work? It has several breaking points already.

lookout · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
Yes, good point. The FAA won by arguing all the regulation does is force drone pilots to mount a module on their drone. The FAA was very careful to say nothing specific about how signal data would be collected, stored, accessed or used and by who and for what purpose. The court made very clear that it was not addressing those issues in any way. Its the big difference between a legal challenge based on "facial validity" and a legal challenge based on how law is "applied" in a particular case. Excerpt from court opinion below:

"Brennan’s pre-enforcement Fourth Amendment claim seeks wholesale vacatur of the Remote ID Rule, so we understand him to be challenging the Rule’s facial validity—an unusual but not unheard-of type of Fourth Amendment claim. To prevail, Brennan “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [rule] would be valid.” Identifying potential applications of the rule that could be unlawful is not enough."

"Where a challenged rule does not exceed statutory authority and comports with the APA, “we will uphold the provision and preserve the right of complainants to bring as-applied challenges against any alleged unlawful applications.”

"We likewise express no opinion on the potential viability of any as-applied Fourth Amendment challenge to specific applications of the Remote ID Rule. We thus do not foreclose the possibility of a declaratory judgment or injunctive action by a party establishing that application of the Remote ID Rule to its own specifically delineated drone uses would subject it to an unconstitutional privacy deprivation."

The session id I think came with the network version that was removed from the requirements. I can't see session id working any other way. And because that was removed by several commenters on the nprm, the court couldn't pin that down. In either case, that part would've been removed one way or another, at least for now.

But figuring out who is operating a quad in a manner that the general public doesn't have any idea about won't bode well. Only with recording of flights will the evidence have any measure to it. So herein, we have to violate the fourth amendment to get it to be meaningful. And if they identify some misshapen pilot, then ask to see their automated flight records, since they weren't recording via remote id, another potential violation.

As far as I can tell Remote id is kind of useless in its current form. That police officer talking about how any drone related incident was to be considered criminal activity or investigation is a little over the top in how this is going to be handled. The faa has the jurisdiction over the airspace to which maybe part of the no expectation of privacy comes in, but handing it over to the state, city, or local government via remote id module even though technically they can't enforce anything, is a strange problem to work out.

Chip · Jan 5, 2023

lookout said:
The faa has the jurisdiction over the airspace to which maybe part of the no expectation of privacy comes in, but handing it over to the state, city, or local government via remote id module even though technically they can't enforce anything, is a strange problem to work out.

Yes, very big and strange problem to create and then work out. Especially when the FAA analogizes everything to vehicle license plates and automated license plate readers. I have already mentioned how many states have laws strictly regulating the collection, storage and use of ALPR. But there are many cities which do as well. For example, the City of Davis in CA which uses ALPR for Parking Enforcement has a comprehensive Policy & Procedure linked below:

DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
Parking Enforcement, ALPR
Policy and Procedure 2.41-A

On July 31, 2018, the Davis City Council, in accordance with the Surveillance Technology Ordinance,
adopted the following ALPR Use Policy (26.07.030 Davis Municipal Code):

I. POLICY

The Davis Police Department uses ALPR as part of comprehensive parking management system,
including electronic vehicle chalking to enforce time limit parking restrictions and electronic
parking permit management. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture,
storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of ALPR technology.

See link below for full policy and procedure:

https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5504

dronerdave · Jan 5, 2023

Since all this started I've said I'll wait until RID is put into service (and enforced) before I start to worry rather than speculate now. I sent in my views against RID during the NPRM request. What happens next is a crap shoot

I do appreciate those taking up the battle against unreasonable RID regulations though...especially this stand alone module idea. Seems like a lot of peanut sized brainstorming going on in regard to the development and implementation of RID.

lookout · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
Yes, very big and strange problem to create and then work out. Especially when the FAA analogizes everything to vehicle license plates and automated license plate readers. I have already mentioned how many states have laws strictly regulating the collection, storage and use of ALPR. But there are many cities which do as well. For example, the City of Davis in CA which uses ALPR for Parking Enforcement has a comprehensive Policy & Procedure linked below:

DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
Parking Enforcement, ALPR
Policy and Procedure 2.41-A

On July 31, 2018, the Davis City Council, in accordance with the Surveillance Technology Ordinance,
adopted the following ALPR Use Policy (26.07.030 Davis Municipal Code):

I. POLICY

The Davis Police Department uses ALPR as part of comprehensive parking management system,
including electronic vehicle chalking to enforce time limit parking restrictions and electronic
parking permit management. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture,
storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of ALPR technology.

See link below for full policy and procedure:

https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5504

Currently any reports of drone sightings by pilots in manned aircraft are referred to the leos already. Not sure what they are actually doing about it. Or if it is even still in the same county by the time they try to scramble over it. They'll be pulling out their receiver app hoping it'll tell them something. Most likely won't have this glorified solution installed on the ones they are trying to catch.

Paul Stocum · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
This airport manager in Camarillo CA demonstrated the aeroscope which the FAA gave him special permission to use.

@ 2:14 Martino begins his demonstration
@ 2:27 aeroscope gets a hit
@3:00 reporter says I can see pilots email address in addition to location and flight data

Martino acknowledges they contact pilots through their email addresses. Neither he nor the FAA had the slightest concern over legality or privacy of email registration data. But, don't worry, I am sure "they" fixed the problem, no more leaks and the FAA makes sure that only the most responsible and law abiding people ever have access to aeroscope or the registration data base. Of course, they have zero regulations in place now on any of this but maybe in the future....

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

Interesting. I once had FAA approval about quarter mile from the Harry Reed International airport, from what is normally an approach runway (although the day of my approved flight, they were taking off from that runway). A bit nerve wracking to fly there, even at just the approved 90'. To fly this space I had to upload the the approval .PDF to DJI fly safe to unlock the geo zone. Does this "gizmo" include approval information? Or just the email to start a dialogue?

Chip · Jan 5, 2023

Paul Stocum said:
Interesting. I once had FAA approval about quarter mile from the Harry Reed International airport, from what is normally an approach runway (although the day of my approved flight, they were taking off from that runway). A bit nerve wracking to fly there, even at just the approved 90'. To fly this space I had to upload the the approval .PDF to DJI fly safe to unlock the geo zone. Does this "gizmo" include approval information? Or just the email to start a dialogue?

I do not think the aeroscope gizmo includes LAANC approval information but I assume such data could be correlated in real time with second device. One important thing I should clarify. The video posted with Martino was made back in 2017. Within a few months, DJI claimed to have patched the leak of email addresses. Martino may have stopped emailing but maybe not. Members have reported here on the forum a few in-person visits by state or federal law enforcement agents following one or more flights that had obviously been tracked. Whether it should take a search warrant (signed by state or federal judge) to search database for illegal flights (at any level) or to access registration data to ID pilots seem open to debate.

Big Bro · Jan 5, 2023

dronerdave said:
Since all this started I've said I'll wait until RID is put into service (and enforced) before I start to worry rather than speculate now. I sent in my views against RID during the NPRM request. What happens next is a crap shoot I do appreciate those taking up the battle against unreasonable RID regulations though...especially this stand alone module idea. Seems like a lot of peanut sized brainstorming going on in regard to the development and implementation of RID.

Yeah, that was my approach also. I said I'll worry about it when it becomes a problem. It was only the other day when trying to launch my Air 2S that I got a notice that said "Unable to Launch RID Error". I was able to reboot and all was well, but that surely got my attention and sent me into research mode.

username_required · Jan 5, 2023

Members have reported here on the forum a few in-person visits by state or federal law enforcement agents following one or more flights that had obviously been tracked.

That's interesting, do you remember if those users registered their drones with the FAA? I can see two ways this happened, one by backtracking a serial number with the FAA database, and the other is they got warrants for their email addresses and tracked them down based on how they check their email.

SmilingOgre · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
I do not think the aeroscope gizmo includes LAANC approval information but I assume such data could be correlated in real time with second device. One important thing I should clarify. The video posted with Martino was made back in 2017. Within a few months, DJI claimed to have patched the leak of email addresses. Martino may have stopped emailing but maybe not. Members have reported here on the forum a few in-person visits by state or federal law enforcement agents following one or more flights that had obviously been tracked. Whether it should take a search warrant (signed by state or federal judge) to search database for illegal flights (at any level) or to access registration data to ID pilots seem open to debate.

I definitely missed that for sure. Never saw a post of pilots being visited by law enforcement. Would love to hear a lot more about that.

SmilingOgre · Jan 5, 2023

Chip said:
I do not think the aeroscope gizmo includes LAANC approval information but I assume such data could be correlated in real time with second device. One important thing I should clarify. The video posted with Martino was made back in 2017. Within a few months, DJI claimed to have patched the leak of email addresses. Martino may have stopped emailing but maybe not. Members have reported here on the forum a few in-person visits by state or federal law enforcement agents following one or more flights that had obviously been tracked. Whether it should take a search warrant (signed by state or federal judge) to search database for illegal flights (at any level) or to access registration data to ID pilots seem open to debate.

Is this the post?

My 16-year-old was the PIC this morning at Rehobeth Beach, Delaware. He had the Mini2 up about 10 minutes and was about 3/4 of a mile out to sea when a uniformed agent accompanied by local PD arrived at our launch site. Both were extremely cordial.

They asked if we knew about the temporary flight restrictions and when we told him we did not, they advised POTUS was in town and his summer beach house was less than a mile north of us on the beach.

I was amazed (and reassured) that they would be able to detect the aircraft but even more amazed at how quickly they were able to determine and respond to the launch site as well.

I hope all law-enforcement encounters go this smoothly. Lesson learned: Check the B4UFLY app before launch.

If so, it sounds pretty decent to me. They missed a TFR about the pres traveling. I can see that. It wasn't like they were hauled off to Gitmo.

karlblessing · Jan 5, 2023

SmilingOgre said:
Is this the post?

I was amazed (and reassured) that they would be able to detect the aircraft but even more amazed at how quickly they were able to determine and respond to the launch site as well.

Aeroscope broadcasts everything from the drone itself including the gps location of the remote. And can detect and read the broadcast within several miles (even greater range the higher the drone goes up).

But I don't know if remote id will have the same range tho, even tho they already had a similar technology built in.

SmilingOgre · Jan 5, 2023

karlblessing said:
Aeroscope broadcasts everything from the drone itself including the gps location of the remote. And can detect and read the broadcast within several miles (even greater range the higher the drone goes up).

But I don't know if remote id will have the same range tho, even tho they already had a similar technology built in.

I get that. I'm more interested in the interaction with law enforcement. What was the circumstance? What was the tone of the conversation?

karlblessing · Jan 5, 2023

SmilingOgre said:
I get that. I'm more interested in the interaction with law enforcement. What was the circumstance? What was the tone of the conversation?

Guessing secret service had monitoring in place for the TFR and dispatched locals to check out possibly minor issues. Probably not the norm day to day but special for the event/location.

SmilingOgre · Jan 5, 2023

karlblessing said:
Guessing secret service had monitoring in place for the TFR and dispatched locals to check out possibly minor issues. Probably not the norm day to day but special for the event/location.

I'm thinking along the same lines. When I see a post that vaguely refers to police intervention reports I want to understand what was actually posted. It is easy to let the imagination go wild and conger up all kinds of egregious circumstances. This is the type of rhetoric that creates hyperbolic reactionary clusters of nonsense. Given what is going on this is the last thing we need. Honest and complete anecdotal iteration is critical to a reasonable assessment of processes in place.

Chip · Jan 6, 2023

username_required said:
That's interesting, do you remember if those users registered their drones with the FAA? I can see two ways this happened, one by backtracking a serial number with the FAA database, and the other is they got warrants for their email addresses and tracked them down based on how they check their email.

I do not recall anyone mentioning FAA registration but I share your interest in knowing the rules governing who controls and has right to accesses the database. Here is an interesting statement I found on the website of Aerial Armor which is a private drone detection and mitigation company which provides services to government and private third parties. With regard to the DJI Aeroscope, Aerial Armor says:

Provides GPS coordinates of the drone, takeoff point and pilot location. Records all data including drone serial number for forensic analysis, drone registration information available with a subpoena or warrant. Coverage range 2-5 miles (depending on environmental factors).

(In another place they say coverage ranges between 12-20 miles).

I am not sure what registration database they are referring to, DJI or FAA or both. But, according to Aerial Armor:

Drone operators consent to the collection of information via DJI Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

There is an exception to the Fourth Amendment called the third party doctrine which essentially holds that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in various documents or data created and held by a private third party especially when they acknowledge that in the third party's terms of service agreement.