Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[brett8883]

We may have found grounds to sue the FAA over the requirement in the new Remote ID rule to broadcast the location data of individuals to the general public and law enforcement.

To bring a lawsuit like this we would need to set up non-profits run by people whom you can all trust and raise money from the community to support it. Before we put all that work in and start asking for donations I would first like to know if the community is even interested in something enough to give money to support it.

We would obviously need to hire a lawyer to assess our standing before we could even ask for public donations but if we had a case would you be willing to chip in?

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Im thinking that the Remote ID will likely bring us more privileges' both as a hobbyist and a 107.
That makes sense to me and giving my location seems to be fair in order to have that given to me.

If your going to put a license on my drone that can be scanned than I want the Freedom that should come with that.
The ability to fly far, fast , beyond line of sight and more places , if rules are broken and you get caught you pay a fine. very similar to driving a car , after so many strikes your grounded.

If it goes the other way and they put hand cuffs on my drone on every flight than there might be a rising , but it needs to play out , its just to soon to fight when we dont know what they are going to do or allow or change so this is what I hope for .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in and out of the storm.

 

[brett8883]

Im thinking that the Remote ID will likely bring us more privileges' both as a hobbyist and a 107.
That makes sense to me and giving my location seems to be fair in order to have that given to me.

If your going to put a license on my drone that can be scanned than I want the Freedom that should come with that.
The ability to fly far, fast , beyond line of sight and more places , if rules are broken and you get caught you pay a fine. very similar to driving a car , after so many strikes your grounded.

If it goes the other way and they put hand cuffs on my drone on every flight than there might be a rising , but it needs to play out , its just to soon to fight when we dont know what they are going to do or allow or change so this is what I hope for .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in and out of the storm.

To be clear this is about broadcasting location data to the general public and law enforcement about the pilot’s location without a warrant not Remote ID in general.

The premise of the lawsuit revolves around the 2018 Supreme Court decision that says location data is personal property protected under the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizure. The goal of the lawsuit is to prevent this data from being accessed without a warrant by anyone and everyone. LE would still be able to obtain the data with a warrant they just wouldn’t be able to harass pilots who are obeying the law. Violators would still be brought to justice.

 

[brett8883]

The ability to fly far, fast , beyond line of sight and more places , if rules are broken and you get caught you pay a fine. very similar to driving a car , after so many strikes your grounded

Just so you know Remote ID doesn’t give you that freedom. There was a change to part 107 rules about flying over people but that is unrelated to Remote ID and is not for recreational flyers.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Do LEA in the USA use aeroscope? To the extent they are currently using it they already get to see operator location and other details including the email address used to register with DJI and the Drone serial#...

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Just so you know Remote ID doesn’t give you that freedom. There was a change to part 107 rules about flying over people but that is unrelated to Remote ID and is not for recreational flyers.

I think that is my point that they have already been making some changes for the good , and the Remote ID has not even gone into effect yet, so again, its just to early in the process and it needs to play out,

Whoever needs special needs such as law enforcement, I am sure they will get that and more.

 

[brett8883]

Do LEA in the USA use aeroscope? To the extent they are currently using it they already get to see operator location and other details including the email address used to register with DJI and the Drone serial#...

That’s different. It’s not required by law, isn’t available to just anyone with a cell phone and doesn’t include personally identifiable information such as an FAA number. It may contain an email address but that can’t be used to identify someone without a warrant to the email company.

 

[DanMan32]

They seem to be considering BVLOS though.

Type 2 specifically limits to VLOS whereas type 1 does not. The main differences between 1 and 2 is that 1 provides RC location and can refuse takeoff if RID is not available whereas type 2 only provides takeoff location and can't control the takeoff. Concern mostly with national/air security that RC operator could be far away from takeoff point so requiring VLOS would limit how far away.

Of course there's no way for the technology to enforce the VLOS with type 2 since it's just an add-on module, much like a strobe or GPS tracker.

Gee, the rules are final, but there's not much final about it. The technical protocols are still undetermined and we're (at least I am) finding issues with the concept that needs fixing.

 

[DanMan32]

That’s different. It’s not required by law, isn’t available to just anyone with a cell phone and doesn’t include personally identifiable information such as an FAA number. It may contain an email address but that can’t be used to identify someone without a warrant to the email company.

Also it's pretty much limited to DJI products. FAA is looking to cover all brands.

 

[WithTheBirds]

That’s different. It’s not required by law, isn’t available to just anyone with a cell phone and doesn’t include personally identifiable information such as an FAA number. It may contain an email address but that can’t be used to identify someone without a warrant to the email company.

Do they use it?

 

[brett8883]

Do they use it?

Yes they use it.

 

[DanMan32]

But back to OPs query.
Yes I would support blocking access to RC location data by the public, and even LEO without warrant.

I don't know though if they can base it on the 2018 cellphone location ruling. Telephony is in a different category with regards to privacy than piloting.

Pilot's safety would be more likely the approach to take, particularly with what I heard FAA claimed the pilot would have to provide his own means of protection, just as the airline industry took to locking the cockpit door to protect the pilot.
We can't exactly carry around a thick steel box to keep ourselves in while we fly.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

If i were to sue the FAA it would be for blind stupidity in how they handled the Drone issue in the first place.
It should have been a system that we already have in place with those of us that drive a car and have a license.

On the license it should have drone, car and bike.
When your 16 you drive a car and drone and 107 its simple.

If you have DUI - Than your not able to fly a drone if your drivers license is suspended this would further make teens more aware of how important the Drivers license was.

With the Remote ID - they have our license plates and now they can fine and suspend us as needed.

If i want to fly beyond VLOS it would be my decision to do so, and if I crash the drone , it would be the same a crashing a car and go on record with a fine despite the reason or where it crashed because I went beyond VLOS..

I really think this is the way it should have been treated and I kind of think that is where we are headed.
They just panicked and could not think clearly.

So yeah they should be fired for trying to reinvent the wheel.


Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in and out of the Storm.

 

[brett8883]

They seem to be considering BVLOS though.

Type 2 specifically limits to VLOS whereas type 1 does not. The main differences between 1 and 2 is that 1 provides RC location and can refuse takeoff if RID is not available whereas type 2 only provides takeoff location and can't control the takeoff. Concern mostly with national/air security that RC operator could be far away from takeoff point so requiring VLOS would limit how far away.

Of course there's no way for the technology to enforce the VLOS with type 2 since it's just an add-on module, much like a strobe or GPS tracker.

Gee, the rules are final, but there's not much final about it. The technical protocols are still undetermined and we're (at least I am) finding issues with the concept that needs fixing.

If pilots are obeying the law then I don’t see why anyone needs to know who and where that pilot is. If a pilot breaks the law then it won’t be difficult to obtain a warrant to identify the pilot. I see no good reason why BVLOS needs to be predicated on anyone and everyone knowing the location and identify of the pilot.

That’s certainly not much hope to hold on to as far as BVLOS. They still need to come out with a proposed rule, have a public comment period, a year to review the public comments, a final rule, and implement ion of a final rule. With all the new rules that just came out we are looking at minimum 4 years at the earliest for BVLOS if that’s even something they are considering. They been saying they’ve been working on a knowledge test for three years now. They aren’t saying they are working on BVLOS yet.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Maybe Im lost, but exactly how do you think that FAA is going to use this against us . Give me a exact idea of where the fear is coming from ? A scenario would be best for me to make sense of this and maybe others.

Im sitting on my deck and flying my drone what happens ?
Are you trying to say that someone near by has Drone Rage and comes to my house with a gun ?

 

[WithTheBirds]

Yes they use it.

Ok. The reason I asked is it seemed, at least from my limited reading of the proposed remote ID broadcast implementation- the information transmitted will be less than that currently available to an auroscope ground station. Has there been any challenge to aeroscope use (is what I was wondering) and to the extent there has been what potential impact/relevance might it have yo your question?

 

[WithTheBirds]

Also it's pretty much limited to DJI products. FAA is looking to cover all brands.

You have assumed wrong. Aeroscope covers many non DJI sUAV with the potential to easily add others.

 

[brett8883]

Maybe Im lost, but exactly how do you think that FAA is going to use this against us . Give me a exact idea of where the fear is coming from ? A scenario would be best for me to make sense of this and maybe others.

Im sitting on my deck and flying my drone what happens ?

You are sitting on your deck flying your drone totally legally and some crazy person from down the street finds your location based on the broadcast data and blows your brains out with a gun because he thinks you are spying on him.

For FAA and LE it’s the same thing as why wouldn’t you want the government tracking your every moment every day. Would you be ok with a location transmitter in your car? How bout an ankle bracket? It’s a privacy issue.

 

[brett8883]

Ok. The reason I asked is it seemed, at least from my limited reading of the proposed remote ID broadcast implementation- the information transmitted will be less than that currently available to an auroscope ground station. Has there been any challenge to aeroscope use (is what I was wondering) and to the extent there has been what potential impact/relevance might it have yo your question?

Like I said it’s not less they want your FAA # which is as good as your name.

 

[brett8883]

But back to OPs query.
Yes I would support blocking access to RC location data by the public, and even LEO without warrant.

I don't know though if they can base it on the 2018 cellphone location ruling. Telephony is in a different category with regards to privacy than piloting.

Pilot's safety would be more likely the approach to take, particularly with what I heard FAA claimed the pilot would have to provide his own means of protection, just as the airline industry took to locking the cockpit door to protect the pilot.
We can't exactly carry around a thick steel box to keep ourselves in while we fly.

Yes exactly! There may be better arguments then the one I brought up. This poll is just to find out if there’s support for overturning this part of the rule. A legal argument doesn’t always perfectly line up with the actual reasoning for suit but the intended outcomes are the same.