What are your thoughts about "Air Sentinel", a new drone tracking app, and similar apps?

[DARKSeifer]

Kenji put this out because he didn't like the way RID was implemented. Having pilot location public knowledge is a very concerning issue. His app will only allow subscribers to see pilot location. And only qualified folks will have that subscription.

And that's where the monetization of the app comes from, now only premium karens will know where you are.

Other apps like DroneScanner and OpenDroneID are free and others will come. There are also inexpensive dedicated receivers which have way better performance that spartphones/tablets and don't require any third party app.

And apart from that, we already had Aeroscope for law enforcement.

Of course, the use of RID listeners is marginal for now, and on low populated areas chances that someone's hearing are little, but on more populated areas, someone will pick up your drone, either by RID or Aeroscope.

In around 530 hours of flight time I "only" had 3-4 shouting karens approaches and none of them have been caused by RID, but by them actually hearing/seeing the drone flying or seeing me with the drone in my hands prior takeoff, but it's just a matter of time that karen apps get popular among karens.

A 1.000-4.000 € flying camera screaming around come and rob me at 3.5Km it's about the same that walking through a favela with a Lowepro backpack full of glass.

PS: Of course, we'll reach the point that nobody will care anymore about your drone, but we are years from that, 10-20 at least, so in the meantime either prepare your ****, leave the hobby or don't comply.

And ofc this post is not by any means an "attack" to app/receivers developers.

 

[karlblessing]

And that's where the monetization of the app comes from, now only premium karens will know where you are.

Other apps like DroneScanner and OpenDroneID are free and others will come. There are also inexpensive dedicated receivers which have way better performance that spartphones/tablets and don't require any third party app.

If they gather data in the same way, they're going to get taken down then due to the patent unless they license the method from what Vic said.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I hope you don't mind me asking a couple of questions.

What precisely is the definition of the word 'subscriber' as in "...His app will only allow subscribers to see pilot location. And only qualified folks will have that subscription..." What is the definition of "qualified folk"? apart from the qualification of paying a substantial monthly fee to be able to data-mine information relevant to both private individuals and their habits while using the free State asset that is airspace.

I did clock the phrase "...data gathering..." which plainly infers that transmitted flight data is captured and then held by a third party. This is data that will also include (for DJI drones) the UUID: Unique User IDentification, as this is transmitted in tandem with the RID signal that DJI's Aeroscope already intercepts and collates - so each dataset of flight telemetry captured by third party RID apps will also contain the unique identifier used to register that specific user in DJI's own database.

Coming from an academic and research background, I know that data gathering is only useful when it is constant and archived so that it can be subject to study, comparison and analysis. How long is this personal data archived for: where is it archived and does the owner of that intercepted data stream have any rights to view the archived record of his/her flights, TOAL location, etc? Do they have the right to know who has bought access to it? Do they have the right to request its deletion?

If the sole "customer" for these databases were the State accredited Aviation Authorities: they might have a legitimate use for them, especially on the run-up to the implementation of U-Space across the European continent when appointed sub-contractors will be able to set themselves up as regional USSP's (U-Space Service Providers) which will be the Tonka-toy equivalent to the existing 'real' aircraft ATM bodies, but geared towards the specific management of UAV flight.

I would be genuinely interested to learn exactly how this specific and detailed information that is to be sold to private individuals and corporations (not just by this app: but by all other RID snoop apps as well) will improve the safety and security of Joe Bloggs: the humble recreational drone user. Try as I might... I really can't see how it can.

I am not opposed to RID in principle - as long as private information is collected and held by a single accredited Authority (i.e the Aviation Authority), is kept private, and is not sold on the open market, but RID should be a two-way street. With RID PROPERLY implemented, the Aviation Authorities benefit by gaining huge amounts of detailed flight data over a large geographic area, but currently there is no incentive offered to the drone flier - it's all stick and no carrot.

Highly accurate flight data is already collected by every DJI drone during every flight and is automatically saved in the flight logs that are user-viewable. I have a second-by-second record of every flight I've ever undertaken. Why not buy that data direct from the user instead of grabbing a worldwide freebie by intercepting the signal?

And... no - I'm not trashing your mate, or the idea behind the app - when there is a gap in the market: someone will always step in to make a profit and more power to their elbow. The only thing I have are legitimate questions.

 

[Droning on and on...]

That was one of the arguments Race Day Quads used in their court case. They lost. There is no 4th Amendment right when you're flying in the NAS.

Same argument with speeding cameras and public roadways. No 4th Amendment protection in either case.

It's not a 4th amendment issue, as correctly, it's not a search.

Just as a cop can follow anyone around in public, observe them, record details about their activities and where they go. This has always been constitutional. Taking a picture of your backpack leaning against a tree is not unconstitutional. Demanding you show the contents is, and requires a warrant or probable cause.

Few people object to this balance, which worked well in the past and garnered little objection because limited human resources naturally kept this sort of government intrusion limited to actual criminal activity for the most part.

Technology has screwed this up, never to go back. The State can now engage in general public surveillance, legally, while this was never contemplated nor intended by the legal framework that has evolved since The Constitution was ratified.

The law needs to change to catch up with technology. Our rights are compromised by circumstance, not any organized effort. Unfortunately, government is inherently lazy and cheap, so protection from government abuse of expanded public surveillance capability isn't going to come from within. The people are going to have to demand it.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Octavio]

You say they say..., "Private companies can greatly benefit from our app by safeguarding their premises from unwanted drone intrusions, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring the security of their operations." I'm not sure how since private companies have nothing to say about how drones fly or don't fly over their properties... Sorry this app even exists for the public to purchase.

Very well said. I totally support you on this. This app is only going to create problems for Drone Enthusiasts, by the ridiculous paranoid people, we encounter every day.

 

[Droning on and on...]

@Felix le Chat I think you're missing one important legal point here: Once you broadcast in the public domain, anyone can legally receive that broadcast and do whatever they want with it. That is, unless there was a companion FCC bill passed with RID changing this that I'm unaware of.

Buy a 500mW FRS radio, push the PTT button and sing a song. I can receive this broadcast, record it, and save it away. I can then do this every time you transmit, build up an archive of your transmissions, then when I have enough material, I'll run it through tone analysis to do some psychoanalysis.

You might not like this. Completely legal.

I trust further discussion isn't necessary to see how this applies directly to anyone receiving RID broadcasts and doing whatever they want with them.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Kenji is my business partner at DSPA (notice we both have the same logo?), and he is the creator behind Air Sentinel. There is no "if" about it.

The FAA doesn't decide how it's created. RID is simply a set of rules mandated by Congress, hijacked by DHS and the FBI, and given to the FAA to enforce.

ASTM set the actual technical standards, and it was accepted by the FAA. It is then up to private industry to create the system(s) by which it is operated. Other people or organizations are more than welcome to set up their own set of technical RID standards and submit them to the FAA. But the required investment in time and money make that unlikely.

Let's use the speed limit as a comparison. Speed limits are set by government entities. But they have no say so in how data is gathered by officers (or civilians for that matter). Each type of radar gun and speed camera has its own patent, usually multiple patents. Those patents are licensed to other manufacturers by the patent holder. No one can use patented software or hardware w/o that license.

In this case, Kenji is the patent holder for this particular method of data gathering. If someone else were to patent a different system, then folks are welcome to license that system for their RID apps.

Kenji put this out because he didn't like the way RID was implemented. Having pilot location public knowledge is a very concerning issue. His app will only allow subscribers to see pilot location. And only qualified folks will have that subscription.

There is a certain set of data required in the packet RID transmits. But there is no legal mandate on what the apps collect. Kenji's system is the one in play at the moment. So app developers will have to license that from him.

So instead of attacking Kenji, who is trying to make RID work for the pilot's safety, you should appreciate what he's doing for this industry.

A perfect example of catching up to the technology to protect rights.

The next step is to tweak the RID law to prohibit access to control station location by the general public, allow access by LE without need for a warrant. A LEO should not need a warrant to simply go talk to a pilot that's disturbing the peace of others.

 

[cammyjams]

I am a brand new 107 pilot who lives in Las Vegas so I don't know jack.
Everyone everywhere is freaking out about RID but here we have something much more powerful and integrated that works swimmingly and has been active for several years now.
It's called Fusion Watch, Google it.
I've seen it in action, twice actually.
The other night, a Saturday at 9 pm near The Strip, I was legally flying in zero grid. Curious, I started a stopwatch when I launched to see 'if Fusion was real'.
Oh it's real alright.
It took them about 3 minutes from detection to dispatch to physical approach on the sidewalk, and they were not particularly happy. Like white on rice they were on me.
Even though I was freaking the eff out inside I remained calm, remembered my spiel that my mentor taught me, and presented my documents. They checked my info on radio with HQ and everyone calmed down. We then spent a few minutes talking about 'how cool these things are, what's the camera like? how high/far can it go? etc' while my heart rate came back down.
They then asked me to please notify them the next time so they don't dispatch on me.
I am now doing this. Last night I flew near the same location again, zero grid - 400' AGL, no LE interaction, safe, legal and super fun flight. Here in my town anyway they don't need RID at all and won't after this September either. They've got something much more powerful, and as a citizen who was here when Oct 1 happened and had friends at that show, I am grateful that these heroes are looking out for all of us.
#vegasstrong #remember

 

[Droning on and on...]

Wow, @cammyjams, what a story!

What mission purpose were you able to get an FAA waiver to fly 400ft in a zero grid section? I'm unable to imagine any thing, especially if the ZG was due to an airport.

 

[Felix le Chat]

@Felix le Chat I think you're missing one important legal point here: Once you broadcast in the public domain, anyone can legally receive that broadcast and do whatever they want with it. That is, unless there was a companion FCC bill passed with RID changing this that I'm unaware of.

Buy a 500mW FRS radio, push the PTT button and sing a song. I can receive this broadcast, record it, and save it away. I can then do this every time you transmit, build up an archive of your transmissions, then when I have enough material, I'll run it through tone analysis to do some psychoanalysis.

You might not like this. Completely legal.

I trust further discussion isn't necessary to see how this applies directly to anyone receiving RID broadcasts and doing whatever they want with them.

No, I'm not missing the point at all. The OP stated clearly that intercepted RID broadcasts would be collected and collated into a resource available to subscription paying clients. If you were listening to me busting a groove on citizen band, recorded it and then sold it and the geo location of where I was broadcasting from to other people, we would be having further discussion whether you liked it or not.

 

[Droning on and on...]

No, I'm not missing the point at all. The OP stated clearly that intercepted RID broadcasts would be collected and collated into a resource available to subscription paying clients. If you were listening to me busting a groove on citizen band, recorded it and then sold it and the geo location of where I was broadcasting from to other people, we would be having further discussion whether you liked it or not.

And that might land you behind bars.

Don't want to lose control of your information? Don't BROADCAST it.

And an aside, chill, man. You act like I'm in favor of this crap. I've said nothing of the sort. I'm responding to assertions about rights and what is and is not legal. So there's no need, or justification to engage in threats.

 

[cammyjams]

Wow, @cammyjams, what a story!

What mission purpose were you able to get an FAA waiver to fly 400ft in a zero grid section? I'm unable to imagine any thing, especially if the ZG was due to an airport.

Not to be coy or like I know secret stuff because I don't (I'm just a beginner) but my mission is irrelevant. Nobody cares what we are doing up there as long as we're playing by the rules, well maybe Karen does in which case if she calls LE you might want to have your documents at the ready just like driving a car. Even with the 107, Laanc, or grid waivers if they get a call they have to investigate it.

 

[matt996]

This app/technology is just going to make you an absolute sitting duck for thieves. Why can't the info only be made available to law enforcement?? In places like the SF Bay Area where property crime is currently running rampant (with no consequences -- don't even get me started), there's no way this won't become a huge mess.

 

[GK-Mavic2P_Pilot]

I just installed Air Sentinel, a new drone tracking app from AirSentinel, and tried it out with my drones. The only drone it's been able to detect is my Avata, and then only on the first flight where I tried it out and not the second flight. On the second flight, it did not detect the Avata and I don't know why. It did not detect the DJI FPV nor my Air 2, which isn't too surprising.

The amount of data it shows is impressive. I can see the IDs and flight paths of drones in my area, and more information if it's available in the database, which it was not for my Avata.

According to their FAQ:

I like this app because I think it can help people be safe from unscrupulous drone pilots. As co-CEO Alan Erickson says:


I'm wondering if others have tried out this app or similar ones and what your thoughts are?

Based on what I see here I am not sure I like it ... seems a bit "privacy intrusive" for the general public to see every drone in the sky near them. BTW, How doe this help protect you from an "unscrupulous pilot" ... what is an "unscrupulous pilot' per definition? Sounds very subjective ... which leads me to the uneasiness ... I don't know ... the jury is still out as far as I am concerned on Apps like this for anyone to use.

 

[Felix le Chat]

And that might land you behind bars.

Don't want to lose control of your information? Don't BROADCAST it.

And an aside, chill, man. You act like I'm in favor of this crap. I've said nothing of the sort. I'm responding to assertions about rights and what is and is not legal. So there's no need, or justification to engage in threats.

Threats? To whom? To what? That's an interesting accusation considering there wasn't one. If you want to have a sensible conversation about this, I suggest you send me a private message.

 

[Vic Moss]

A perfect example of catching up to the technology to protect rights.

The next step is to tweak the RID law to prohibit access to control station location by the general public, allow access by LE without need for a warrant. A LEO should not need a warrant to simply go talk to a pilot that's disturbing the peace of others.

An LEO doesn't need a warrant now. As a matter of fact, its written into the law that they don't.

14 CFR § 107.7 (2) (iii) states that if a "Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer" asks to see your RPC and identification, you must show it to them.

And 49 USC 44809 (7) states that your TRUST Certificate must "made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request".

When it comes to LEO use of drones, then there must be a warrant. At least for any evidence gathering. For accident scene and exigent situation, warrants aren't needed.

I do agree the law needs to be tweaked so the general public doesn't have access to pilot location. But that was included in the Final Rule at the behest of DHS. So it's unlikely that will ever be removed unless found unconstitutional. That was one of the arguments in the RDQ case. But they lost that case, so until it's overturned at the Federal Level, that aspect of RID is there to stay.

 

[Vic Moss]

It's called Fusion Watch, Google it.
I've seen it in action, twice actually.
The other night, a Saturday at 9 pm near The Strip, I was legally flying in zero grid. Curious, I started a stopwatch when I launched to see 'if Fusion was real'.

I have no idea what "Fusion Watch" is, but when I google it, all I get are watches.

But I can tell you that The Strip is one of the most heavily monitored airspaces in the country. There are more DJI AeroScope systems in that 5 miles strip of road that any other area in the U.S. that I know of.

Not only does LVPD monitor the area, so do many of the casinos. If you launch a DJI drone, they'll know you're there.

I'm in the process of getting a COA for the parking lot just East of the High Roller for a demo during Commercial UAV Expo in September. I have no doubt we'll get a visit when we do that. But as with you, it will be a legal flight.

So yeah, it was likely AeroScope. Do you have a link to the Fusion Watch you mentioned?

 

[Vic Moss]

And that's where the monetization of the app comes from, now only premium karens will know where you are.

No, that's not accurate.

At least with Air Sentinel, you'll have to be qualified (LEO, First Responder, etc.) in order to have a license. Just because you are a "premium Karen", doesn't mean you get to have a licenes.

Other apps like DroneScanner and OpenDroneID are free and others will come. There are also inexpensive dedicated receivers which have way better performance that spartphones/tablets and don't require any third party app.

If they are violating Kenji's patent, they will be shut down, and/or required to buy a license. And part of the license requirement is that location can't be shown to anyone w/o a subscription.

And apart from that, we already had Aeroscope for law enforcement.

Aeroscope is a different animal all together. And DJI no longer makes that. With the advent of RID, it's not longer needed for the most part.

Of course, the use of RID listeners is marginal for now, and on low populated areas chances that someone's hearing are little, but on more populated areas, someone will pick up your drone, either by RID or Aeroscope.

I have no doubt come September, there will be a publicity push about this.

In around 530 hours of flight time I "only" had 3-4 shouting karens approaches and none of them have been caused by RID, but by them actually hearing/seeing the drone flying or seeing me with the drone in my hands prior takeoff, but it's just a matter of time that karen apps get popular among karens.

A 1.000-4.000 € flying camera screaming around come and rob me at 3.5Km it's about the same that walking through a favela with a Lowepro backpack full of glass.

It is a fear. And a legitimate one. We'll see what happens.

This was brought up by the RDQ case, but dismissed because of "lack of harm". It's going to take an actual incident with "harm" to bring that back to the courts. Unfortunately.

 

[MA2 317]

I have no idea what "Fusion Watch" is, but when I google it, all I get are watches.

Me too.

Added drone detection to the search and maybe it's this?

Fusion Watch drone detection - Google Search

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

 

[Vic Moss]

MA2 317" data-source="post: 1555892" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Me too.

Added drone detection to the search and maybe it's this?

That's likely it.

And further proof he wasn't found by Fusion Watch. This isn't a thing yet. It was proposed two years ago by college students. It's not on the market yet. Might not ever, but we'll see.