Was the FAA honest on data collection?

[theDRONEranger]

Interesting reading:
From Lawyer Rupprecht

RaceDayQuads LLC v. FAA (Lawsuit Challenging Drone Remote Identification Regulations) – Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance

IT Service WordPress Theme

jrupprechtlaw.com

 

[sar104]

I used to think that he was a fairly reputable and objective source of information, but that is clearly just a hit piece. He obviously supports the lawsuit, but in the summary of arguments the RaceDayQuads legal team seems to have absolutely nothing of substance. I think this will be a short process.

 

[BigAl07]

I used to think that he was a fairly reputable and objective source of information, but that is clearly just a hit piece. He obviously supports the lawsuit, but in the summary of arguments the RaceDayQuads legal team seems to have absolutely nothing of substance. I think this will be a short process.

That's my sentiment EXACTLY! I held him (JR) on a very high level from early on because he was doing so much for the Aviation community (not just UAS) but I honestly think he is a totally different person from those days. Now I think he is more of an "Ambulance Chaser" doing anything he can to get his name into publication.

 

[Vic Moss]

Jonathan is a friend of mine. I’m incredibly disappointed to see him supporting this lawsuit.

 

[BigAl07]

Jonathan is a friend of mine. I’m incredibly disappointed to see him supporting this lawsuit.

I used to say that same thing.

 

[sar104]

I get the impression that he is very bitter about something related to this issue. I wonder if he tried to get himself formally included in the RID planning process and was rejected.

 

[Chip]

I am surprised that anyone thinks the arguments raised in the brief are open and shut when there is no direct precedent. The lead argument from brief is:

UNLIMITED REMOTE ID VIOLATES FOURTH AMENDMENT

A. The Rule Infringes Upon Reasonable Expectations in Privacy

1. Warrantless Search of Curtilage
2. Infringes upon Privacy Interests of Small Drone Operators
3. Infringes upon Privacy Expectation in the Whole of People’s Movements
4. The Fourth Amendment is Violated by Unlimited Time Length of Tracking

B. Remote ID Utilizes More Intrusive Tracking Technology Than That Already Recognized as Unconstitutional

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why every airplane and motorized vehicle and vessel in the USA should not be required to emit signal with owner/operator ID and GPS point of origin and travel coordinates.

The FAA demands your little 250 gram drone transmit all of this data + way more:

 

[tlswift58]

I am surprised that anyone thinks the arguments raised in the brief are open and shut when there is no direct precedent. The lead argument from brief is:

UNLIMITED REMOTE ID VIOLATES FOURTH AMENDMENT

A. The Rule Infringes Upon Reasonable Expectations in Privacy

1. Warrantless Search of Curtilage
2. Infringes upon Privacy Interests of Small Drone Operators
3. Infringes upon Privacy Expectation in the Whole of People’s Movements
4. The Fourth Amendment is Violated by Unlimited Time Length of Tracking

B. Remote ID Utilizes More Intrusive Tracking Technology Than That Already Recognized as Unconstitutional

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why every airplane and motorized vehicle and vessel in the USA should not be required to emit signal with owner/operator ID and GPS point of origin and travel coordinates.

The FAA demands your little 250 gram drone transmit all of this data + way more:

The FAA is the controller of airspace and any plane or drone that flies in it should be trackable to some degree - mainly for safety and should a plane crash occur - the plane can be more easily found.

I'm all for freedom and less government and while a drone is not your typical 200-600 mph airplane with people onboard, as drones become more prevalent and expected to be used for delivery / etc - somebody has to track these flights so they don't incur a manned aircraft crash or if they should crash into people / buildings / etc. As for rec / 107 drone usage - the FAA creates rules that many of us DO NOT agree wholly or in part with - but some of them come about due to very reckless people. Isn't that how most rules / laws come about?

Tracking cars has been in effect for decades with OBD, OnStar, and future iterations. We may or may not know who and why they track them, but the same idea is being pawned by insurance companies to add an app to your phone and track your driving habits. For some - that may get a decrease in insurance rates or for some a huge increase - but people sign up for that. As with OBD, in a crash they can take the info to determine what happened prior to and possibly assess penalties if the driver was acting against current rules / laws.

I, personally have not looked much into Remote ID; so do not know the implications. Folks like @Vic Moss and others who are aware and part of the planning process / boards are and maybe they can enlighten us more so WE AS A COMMUNITY understand and if need be to voice our concerns / opinions on the matter. I don't like BIG BROTHER watching me at any time so there is that aspect. I also try my very best to stay within the current rules; so any data that may be captured now would be fairly meaningless. Yet, as a rec flyer it does seem to be more intrusion into a hobby that I enjoy and may possibly force many of us out if we want to remain somewhat anonymous.

 

[Corsair415]

I am surprised that anyone thinks the arguments raised in the brief are open and shut when there is no direct precedent. The lead argument from brief is:

UNLIMITED REMOTE ID VIOLATES FOURTH AMENDMENT

A. The Rule Infringes Upon Reasonable Expectations in Privacy

1. Warrantless Search of Curtilage
2. Infringes upon Privacy Interests of Small Drone Operators
3. Infringes upon Privacy Expectation in the Whole of People’s Movements
4. The Fourth Amendment is Violated by Unlimited Time Length of Tracking

B. Remote ID Utilizes More Intrusive Tracking Technology Than That Already Recognized as Unconstitutional

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why every airplane and motorized vehicle and vessel in the USA should not be required to emit signal with owner/operator ID and GPS point of origin and travel coordinates.

The FAA demands your little 250 gram drone transmit all of this data + way more:

View attachment 137703

It definitely seems the Constitution isn’t held in much regard by a lot of people these days.

 

[Droniac]

I used to say that same thing.

Ouch.

 

[Droniac]

I am surprised that anyone thinks the arguments raised in the brief are open and shut when there is no direct precedent. The lead argument from brief is:

UNLIMITED REMOTE ID VIOLATES FOURTH AMENDMENT

A. The Rule Infringes Upon Reasonable Expectations in Privacy

1. Warrantless Search of Curtilage
2. Infringes upon Privacy Interests of Small Drone Operators
3. Infringes upon Privacy Expectation in the Whole of People’s Movements
4. The Fourth Amendment is Violated by Unlimited Time Length of Tracking

B. Remote ID Utilizes More Intrusive Tracking Technology Than That Already Recognized as Unconstitutional

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why every airplane and motorized vehicle and vessel in the USA should not be required to emit signal with owner/operator ID and GPS point of origin and travel coordinates.

The FAA demands your little 250 gram drone transmit all of this data + way more:

View attachment 137703

Point taken ! Godspeed, Droniac

 

[tlswift58]

It definitely seems the Constitution isn’t held in much regard by a lot of people these days.

Ain't that the truth - but we were forewarned many decades ago about it - yet many have become used to the "SAFE AND SECURE" route. Yet, we are not SAFE, nor SECURE - so we lost much in that process.

 

[brett8883]

 

[Chip]

Yeah, when that FAA lawyer steps up to the podium in about seven weeks to try and respond to Rupprecht all anyone will hear in their minds is....

It's close to midnight and something evil's lurkin' in the dark
Under the moonlight you see a sight that almost stops your heart
You try to scream but terror takes the sound before you make it
You start to freeze as horror looks you right between the eyes,
You're paralyzed...Cause this is thriller, thriller night

Brett, better set up the live stream for this oral argument in December gonna be bigger and better than 64 Funny Cars (if you were around then). DONT YOU DARE MISS IT

 

[sar104]

It definitely seems the Constitution isn’t held in much regard by a lot of people these days.

Actually as your post appears to confirm, it seems the the Constitution isn't understood by a lot of people these days.

 

[Corsair415]

Actually as your post appears to confirm, it seems the the Constitution isn't understood by a lot of people these days.

Thank you for being an example of my comment.

 

[brett8883]

Yeah, when that FAA lawyer steps up to the podium in about seven weeks to try and respond to Rupprecht all anyone will hear in their minds is....

It's close to midnight and something evil's lurkin' in the dark
Under the moonlight you see a sight that almost stops your heart
You try to scream but terror takes the sound before you make it
You start to freeze as horror looks you right between the eyes,
You're paralyzed...Cause this is thriller, thriller night

Brett, better set up the live stream for this oral argument in December gonna be bigger and better than 64 Funny Cars (if you were around then). DONT YOU DARE MISS IT

Didn’t you see my post above… I’ve already got the popcorn out ready to go. Can’t wait!

 

[sar104]

Thank you for being an example of my comment.

Is English not your first language?

 

[Corsair415]

Is English not your first language?

Sure, why not. Let that be the reason you’d be willing to use the Constitution like so much toilet paper.

Seriously though, don’t let me get in the way of your whining about those that would fight to prevent government overreach.

Honestly, by your irrational offense at this, I’d not be surprised if you didn’t have some sort of vested interest in this. I mean, it’s just horrible some bureaucrats might get their pet project knocked on its heels.

 

[sar104]

Sure, why not. Let that be the reason you’d be willing to use the Constitution like so much toilet paper.

I was just puzzled how my observation that you clearly don't understand the Constitution led you to the asinine conclusion that I don't hold it in much regard.

Let me be clearer - it's your comprehension skills that I don't hold in much regard.

Seriously though, don’t let me get in the way of your whining about those that would fight to prevent government overreach.

Here's the thing - you need to do more than just yap about government overreach to make the argument that the it is actually occurring, or that the Constitution has been violated.

Honestly, by your irrational offense at this, I’d not be surprised if you didn’t have some sort of vested interest in this. I mean, it’s just horrible some bureaucrats might get their pet project knocked on its heels.

My offense at what? My only vested interest is that I fly these things professionally and recreationally, and I'd prefer that significant segments of the market, together with you and others with similar attitudes on this thread, try not to tarnish the reputation of the industry with ignorant assertions.