Myetkt
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 44
- Reactions
- 51
- Age
- 67
When will someone make an Anti-RID transmission module you can put on your drone?
- Thread starter StevenBrodsky
- Start date
- Status
From an earlier post, I'm glad you agree with me that "no; LEO should not ignore it and just look the other way whle you break the law." But I knew you would get to this eventually; everyone always does when the argument comes up.
I think you are using the term "arrest" loosely. In the example you mentioned, if the FBI has probable cause that someone is breaking a federal law, they can detain and/or arrest without a warrant if it happens right in front of them. If the FBI wants to hold someone who he saw committing a state crime, I'm pretty sure he won't have any trouble holding them for police to arrive.Setting aside Printz v. United States, in general any law enforcement officer has the authority to enforce law at any government level if they see a crime taking place. An FBI agent has the legal authority to arrest, cuff, and detain a mugger when he sees the crime, hold the perp, and then turn him over to local PD when they arrive.
You, private citizen, do not – even with your awesome "citizen's arrest" authority
Imagine the outcry if that FBI agent had to stand there 10ft away and do nothing. He was interviewed, and it was all over the news. Not allowed to intervene, by law. Stated he really wanted to help the old lady, but all he was allowed to do was call 911.
You're moving the goal posts.
Fortunately it takes more than "reading all about it" to understand the concept and the law. Are you going to apologize for suggesting that Printz gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce (arrest) federal laws? You don't have to but earlier I was asked to "take responsibility" and "apologize" so I guess that's a thing here, a tactic used to pretend like you've won a disagreement, so let's see if there is hypocrisy; let's see if you "own up to it." Before 1997 they couldn't and after 1997 they could, is that right? Or, are you backing off that now.
Being a 100% advocate of the Constitution and living in a state that wouldn't tolerate my own state government trampling all over the 2nd amendment, I am intimately familiar with that situation and have lived it. Nothing you say can change that.
Exactly why I am calling for a law that stops law enforcement for taking the position. They *absolutely* will put the cuffs on you and take you to county jail and figure out a way to charge you legally even if that means citing some sort of related state or city violation. You might be let go later, the charges might be dropped, or you might go to court and beat it but absolutely the police will do this when they see fit. They'll make it happen, they'll find a way and all I am asking is let's stop this while we can. Not just a law saying warrantless arrests and confiscation on drone crimes are prohibited but also by saying any officer who does it anyway is guilty of a crime. Drone pilots don't need this today but I assure you, they'll need it tomorrow. Who wants to fly a recreational drone flight knowing the police can arrest you if they believe you are flying your drone BVLOS *and* there's no cap on the fine, it maybe possibly could be $50,000 depending on your "attitude?" We'll lose the hobby.....
Is there a way to call in a Broken Arrow on this thread?
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I wish I could give that post 100 thumbs up
Reply to it and put 100
in the message 
Actually, no, don't
Ok fine, I'll call it; I think we've made our points. Honestly, no disrespect to anyone. Just frustration. I feel like we've hit a wall with the hobby and if this is going to grow and evolve, we need the understanding and the unity and the clarification on teh rules to evolve as well. I'd prefer to do that here rather than in a courtroom; that was the point of the conversation; not trying to attack anyone. Have a good rest of your weekend.
pinballwiz86
Well-Known Member
Will DJI enable the capability for AirSense to detect another drone in the vicinity? That would be awesome.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Not possible. ADS-B is not transmitted by DJI drones. AirSense is an ADS-B reciever.
At this time, RID is a sUAS identification/telemetry system, ADS-B manned aircraft. The two are not integrated.
DARKSeifer
Well-Known Member
RID emits in the same bandwidth as the controller and image transmission, so it's not possible to block RID without blocking the drone. The only way to do it is through software, but there's little that works for the moment.
The best approach atm is to anticipate the problem; know where you are flying, know if there's an Aeroscope/fixed RID listener around, know what you are infringing or not. Then flying from fenced private property (hence reaching you is trespassing) is one of the best approaches, hit&run of less than 5-10 minutes is also a good option, it's usually all you need.
On the other hand, unless you are facing an Aeroscope or a good RID receiver, phones tend to have a hard time picking the drone with the apps unless you are hovering nearby, but a packet is all they need to know your location.
In the end you are going to get approached by people that sees you, sot not being seen is the answer, it doesn't matter if the drone emits or not, so don't fly from exposed places. If you fly from public ground, fly from an advantage point, that means, a place where you can see anyone coming way before they see you, so you have time to land, pack the drone in the bag and move away.
Last edited:
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
RID can work over Wi-Fi or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). BLE operates in the 2.4 Ghz range, which is also used by Wi-Fi. On the drones with RID included, RID is broadcasted using the same radio hardware used for radio and control. As @DARKSeifer wrote, if you blocked an internal RID feature, you would be cutting off all access to the drone.
Jamming a RID signal would mean jamming the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi frequencies, which would affect any other device within range using those frequencies. That would be illegal.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
Time to close this thread. It's gone off topic and in some cases, uncivil.
- Status
Similar threads
