This Hacker Tool Can Pinpoint a DJI Drone Operator’s Exact Location Every DJI quadcopter broadcasts its operator’s position via radio—unencrypted. Now

[anotherlab]

Actually if you're inside your vehicle privacy is not the operating principle - it is literally considered a part of your domicile and subject to property rights for search and seizure.

Do you have a source for that?

INAL, but strictly speaking a legal domicile is the place where you have legal residence and plan to live in. You can have multiple residences, but only one legal domicile. Vehicles are not considered to be a legal domicile in the US.

Automobiles do not have the same legal protection as residences do for searches. Almost 100 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Carrol v. United States that police officers could search a vehicle without a warrant just on probable cause. The context was bootleggers during prohibition, but that exception to the Fourth Amendment has been held as valid for the last 98 years.

 

[Red Pyro]

You have no expectation of privacy once you leave your home.

That's CCP talk

 

[Yaros]

Hacker tool? It's exactly how RID it's supposed to work. You can download Drone Scanner and OpenDroneID for free from the Google Store and pick any DJI recent drone, and it's operator location in at least 2.7Km radius with nothing more than your cheap smartphone, not only in US, but in Europe too.

Interestingly enough I tried this app with Air 2 and Air 2S it didn't work…

And this is a hacker tool because it hacks aeroscope, DJI's proprietary protocol. It should NOT be confused with remote ID.

 

[ksnax]

I'll just conclude my comments with this: It would be foolish to expect that a pilot ever truly had any protection from geolocation. Whether that is from GPS data being transmitted or simple triangulation. If it broadcasts, it CAN be found. The semantics we are really talking about here are how easy that is to do, and the level of transparency involved by DJI in enabling it.

Bottom line for me is that I assume any imported electronics to be compromised in some way, whether intentionally, or carelessly. Operators MUST assume that they are being tracked and behave accordingly in that light. So nothing changes for me either way.

 

[DARKSeifer]

Interestingly enough I tried this app with Air 2 and Air 2S it didn't work…

And this is a hacker tool because it hacks aeroscope, DJI's proprietary protocol. It should NOT be confused with remote ID.

Only work with DJI RID compliant drones on the latest firmwares. As soon as you engage the motors it starts transmitting all the telemetry and your location or takeoff point depending if you have the GPS active on the smartphone or not.

My Mini 2 which I have locked on a hacked older firmware version won't appear on RID apps but would still transmitt to Aeroscope. My Mavic 3 appears on both.

RID is basically Aeroscope for anyone to listen and for every manufacturer to comply, so nobody is going to use Aeroscope anymore, which is basically the same with the exception that Aeroscope also gives you the e-mail from the DJI account of the pilot.

This is from a test I did some months ago with the M3 and OpenDroneID, but with DroneScanner latest version I was able to pick it from 2.7Km away with no other equipment than my Galaxy Tab A7.

 

[Chip]

Automobiles do not have the same legal protection as residences do for searches. Almost 100 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Carrol v. United States that police officers could search a vehicle without a warrant just on probable cause. The context was bootleggers during prohibition, but that exception to the Fourth Amendment has been held as valid for the last 98 years.

Yes and no. The 4th Amendment in the US Constitution sets a nationwide floor to protect privacy rights but not a ceiling. The states have their own constitutions and laws which may provide broader privacy protections to their residents than the federal floor. So, for example, in Washington, the state supreme court ruled in 2012, that police may not search a vehicle without a warrant absent exigent circumstances. Reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed is not alone enough.

 

[DARKSeifer]

Well, I knew o could easily beat my detection test, so I did it a moment ago, 3.5Km detection on a Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 with Drone Scanner on a Mavic 3.

You just need to catch one beacon in order to pinpoint the operator's location or takeoff location.

 

[Chip]

Well, it's worth noting that most people (and most drone owners) are voluntarily carrying devices that continuously broadcast not only their position, but also what they've looked at on the web recently.

As far as a cellphone then yes I agree. But do the police not need a search warrant to monitor your movements via interception of electronic cell signal? Also, how does a cellphone or ipad broadcast your internet searches? Does search history not reside inside the device and inside Google? Would law enforcement not need a subpoena or warrant to search either?

 

[MS Coast]

I've only updated my Mavic firmware once, and I regretted it. I don't install dji updates. I simply don't trust the company.

You're flying a DJI drone aren't you? If so you trusted them enough to design and build the drone, create the app, and write the firmware. Why not trust them to do updates?

I've done every firmware, software, and AirSense database update offered on a Mini, Mini3, Mavic 2, Mavic 2S, Mini 3 Pro, and Mavic 3. No problems on any.

Is anyone still flying the Mavic 3 with the original unmodified firmware and software? I doubt that anyone has foregone those updates.

 

[MS Coast]

As far as a cellphone then yes I agree. But do the police not need a search warrant to monitor your movements via interception of electronic cell signal? Also, how does a cellphone or ipad broadcast your internet searches? Does search history not reside inside the device and inside Google? Would law enforcement not need a subpoena or warrant to search either?

The concerns voiced here about remote ID have been almost exclusively related to thieves or meddling anti-droners locating the pilot, not the police.

Many people use their phone or tablet on public wifi systems without security measures, exposing everything they do online to someone hacking into their activity.

 

[anotherlab]

As far as a cellphone then yes I agree. But do the police not need a search warrant to monitor your movements via interception of electronic cell signal? Also, how does a cellphone or ipad broadcast your internet searches? Does search history not reside inside the device and inside Google? Would law enforcement not need a subpoena or warrant to search either?

The US Justice Department requires federal agents to obtain search warrants before using IMSI-catchers (aka "stingray devices"). At the state level, multiple states have set the same requirements.

A mobile device does not "broadcast" your internet searches. But sites that sell stuff can and do sell your information to companies like Facebook. If you have ever used free wifi at a location that collects your email address, you are providing data to that business, which can then sell that information. That's active tracking.

Then there is passive tracking. Even if you do not connect to a store's wifi, as long as you have wifi enabled you are broadcasting information about yourself. Anyone can collect your MAC address and there are services that can match up that MAC address with your personal identity.

Law enforcement can monitor your movements by tracking cell tower pings from a cellular device. They would have to present a search warrant to the cellular providers to get those records. If you buy gas with a credit card or use an electronic toll payment device like E-ZPass, you are leaving location tracking information in many places.

Browser search history is stored on both the device and at the search company. In the case of Google, they may keep that data for a period of time. Some information is easy to get under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but obtaining your browser history from your device or Google will require a search warrant, subpoena, or court order signed by a judge.

 

[lookout]

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

Makes more sense than putting it on a drone.

 

[FlySkyJumper]

Yeah this isn't anything new. I've been able to track drones and their operators for several years now.

What's unfortunate is it's a big invasion of a drone pilots privacy and then theirs the whole safety issue in many levels.

I'm fine with law enforcement and the FAA knowing who and where I am. They have had this capability for years and been keeping track of UAV operatiors for years. Who cares tbh.

What I'm not ok with is the general public knowing who I am, my location and what equipment I'm flying.

The general public does not have the ability to run our automobile license plates. Why should they suddenly be be able to access our drones (license plate) and all the intel attached to it.

 

[ksnax]

The general public does not have the ability to run our automobile license plates. Why should they suddenly be be able to access our drones (license plate) and all the intel attached to it.

Except for the part where people can. If it's public record, it's accessible, and plates and VINs are definitely public record.

 

[fly253]

Not entirely. For example if a woman with a baby needs to breastfeed and seeks out a spot removed from general traffic it is an offense to take a photograph because she took steps to find a secluded area.
Many such examples.

You can’t trespass the eyes and the camera is an extension of that. You would be perfectly within your rights to photograph her. Now stalking/harassing is a different story but simply photographing her would be 100% legal.

 

[anotherlab]

You can’t trespass the eyes and the camera is an extension of that. You would be perfectly within your rights to photograph her. Now stalking/harassing is a different story but simply photographing her would be 100% legal.

Legally speaking, the camera is not an extension of the eyes. Do you have a source for that assertion?

Jurisdiction is always local, but if you are on a set of stairs and could see up a skirt that would be creepy but legal. If you took out your phone and took a picture, that would be illegal. In the UK, they now have a law on the books that makes it illegal to take a picture of a breast-feeding woman for self-gratification or for harassment purposes.

 

[MS Coast]

What I'm not ok with is the general public knowing who I am, my location and what equipment I'm flying.

The general public does not have access to the operator's identification or to the drone type in the remote ID system.

The general public does not have the ability to run our automobile license plates. Why should they suddenly be be able to access our drones (license plate) and all the intel attached to it.

What "intel" is attached to a drone registration number in the remote ID system? The name and address and other information in the of the operator is available only on request by public safety personnel. The public has no access. No worries there.

The ADS-B system for manned aircraft provides extensive information to anyone with a phone app, including the N-number. Anyone can look in a public database and find the name and address of the owner. I just found the person who owns my old ASW-19 glider. Nothing like that can be done with drone registration numbers. No worries there.

Aircraft Inquiry

registry.faa.gov

Remote ID does provide the location of the drone operator. The worries about that seem to be overblown. Potential thieves have opportunities every day to attack drone operators in plain view. I've never heard of that happening and I doubt that it will be a significant problem with remote ID implemented. Yes, it does allow a so-called "Karen" to locate a drone operator. That doesn't keep me awake at night.

 

[lookout]

The general public does not have access to the operator's identification or to the drone type in the remote ID system.

What "intel" is attached to a drone registration number in the remote ID system? The name and address and other information in the of the operator is available only on request by public safety personnel. The public has no access. No worries there.

The ADS-B system for manned aircraft provides extensive information to anyone with a phone app, including the N-number. Anyone can look in a public database and find the name and address of the owner. I just found the person who owns my old ASW-19 glider. Nothing like that can be done with drone registration numbers. No worries there.

Aircraft Inquiry

registry.faa.gov

Remote ID does provide the location of the drone operator. The worries about that seem to be overblown. Potential thieves have opportunities every day to attack drone operators in plain view. I've never heard of that happening and I doubt that it will be a significant problem with remote ID implemented. Yes, it does allow a so-called "Karen" to locate a drone operator. That doesn't keep me awake at night.

All the secret meetings the FAA had, and the possibilities of getting leaked or hacked databases along with a weak excuse for needing all of this means we don't need it!

 

[MS Coast]

All the secret meetings the FAA had, and the possibilities of getting leaked or hacked databases along with a weak excuse for needing all of this means we don't need it!

Maybe it's not needed. Maybe it isn't. In any case, the reality is that as of September 16, 2023 it will be required.

I'd certainly rather that it wasn't happening, but it's not going to have a significant effect on my flying, nor do I expect any problems.

 

[fly253]

Legally speaking, the camera is not an extension of the eyes. Do you have a source for that assertion?

Jurisdiction is always local, but if you are on a set of stairs and could see up a skirt that would be creepy but legal. If you took out your phone and took a picture, that would be illegal. In the UK, they now have a law on the books that makes it illegal to take a picture of a breast-feeding woman for self-gratification or for harassment purposes.