Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[brett8883]

@Chip reading the FAA final rule on remote ID the FAA seems to be taking the “Napster” defense on the issue of wiretapping and pen/trap.

They are saying they just built the tool. They didn’t wiretap anyone, it isn’t their problem if LE abuses it to conduct illegal wiretapping. Would that hold any water? Do they have no obligation to make sure there are minimum safeguards in place against abuse? If I remember it didn’t work for Napster. They called it the Xerox defense back then.

 

[Chip]

Didn’t know you were still up I added that fact to my original post above. Doesn’t that throw out the statutory construction argument?

If the FAA is making us broadcast this information unencrypted they are de facto delegating their authority to local LE, State LE, and your next door neighbor. Heck they are advertising it as such.

It’s different in that it allows the FAA to partner with other federal agencies but still strictly forbids the FAA from letting State and local LE to its dirty work which it is clearly in violation of. If you read the whole thing it makes clear time and time again this power is for the federal government only. Whoever wrote this didn’t want the FAA to give away these powers to local and State LE which they have done anyway.

Brett, I guess it depends on what you mean by dirty work. It seems the FAA can authorize federal, state or local law enforcement to test UAV surveillance and detection equipment which might otherwise be illegal under federal law.

 

[Chip]

They are saying they just built the tool.

​

That's what they all say.​

18 U.S. Code § 2512 - Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited​

18 U.S. Code § 2512 - Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[DanMan32]

The only problem I have is the part where it requires me to do a lot of homework to get this Remote ID on my drone. That's too much protocol to follow. If it's a quick update on my app to achieve this, then fine, I'm ok with that, but there's already too much going on just to fly a drone in New Jersey, like finding a spot where no one is watching me launch, quickly fly quickly pack, learning kungfu to fend off ppl who come looking for trouble while I'm piloting,

I get it, this law is good to catch those causing lives on a plane or something, but don't put the trouble on the rest of us.

A lot of homework?

You have 3 simple choices:
1. Get a drone that has RID built-in
2. Get a module that will send RID and attach to your drone
3. Don't use RID, but then only fly in designed areas.

For item 1, if possible DJI will provide a firmware update that will have our drones transmit RID. If not possible, we're forced to follow item 2 or 3.

For item 2, not much different than putting on a tracker or strobe light.

What's so difficult about that?

 

[brett8883]

Brett, I guess it depends on what you mean by dirty work. It seems the FAA can authorize federal, state or local law enforcement to test UAV surveillance and detection equipment which might otherwise be illegal under federal law.

@Chip I’m confused I thought it specifically says they cannot do that? They can partner with federal LE but it says they can’t delegate authority to local agencies.

Am I wrong in that the FAA is allowed to detect and mitigate UAVs but isn’t allowed to authorize local LE to do the same?

I also found something else. The law defines the difference between UAS and UA.

unmanned aircraft system
(12) Unmanned aircraft system .— The term “unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the operator to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

unmanned aircraft​

(11) Unmanned aircraft .— The term “unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

The distinction is that UAS includes the control station where as UA does not.

Well the FAA is only under protection from the Wiretap and Pen trap laws in sections (c) and (d). Well;


(c)Airspace Hazard Mitigation Program.—
In order to test and evaluate technologies or systems that detect and mitigate potential aviation safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft, the Administrator shall deploy such technologies or systems at 5airports, including 1 airport that ranks in the top 10 of the FAA’s most recent Passenger Boarding Data.

(d)Authority.—
Under the testing and evaluation in subsection (c), the Administrator shall use unmanned aircraft detection and mitigation systems to detect and mitigate the unauthorized operation of an unmanned aircraft that poses a risk to aviation safety.


I see that are exempt from federal laws pertaining to tracking unmanned aircraft but where in there does it say they can track control stations? The law goes to great trouble to define these two terms. I don’t think it could be argued it’s an oversight especially when it uses UAS in other parts of the same statute.

 

[Chip]

Brett,
You are right that last post was sloppy. This issue of delegation is worth further consideration. However, I think the statute you are referring may be barking up the wrong tree at least for what you are trying to do. I think the statute requires the creation of a Plan along with testing, but does not address implementation of the Plan.

 

[Chip]

The FAA has authorized North Dakota state and local LE units to conduct operations nationwide:

Northeast Region Unmanned Aircraft Systems Unit Receives FAA Authorization for Nationwide Flights

https://publicsafetyaviation.org/images/Press_Release_C/Blanket_COA__Press_Release.pdf

 

[Chip]

2017 ARC Committee included:

Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA)
California Highway Patrol, Office of Air Operations
Grand Forks Sheriff’s Office
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
Metropolitan Police Department
Miami Beach Police Department
Montgomery County Police Department
New York City Police Department
The Police Foundation

North Dakota is the only state in the country to allow law enforcement to use weaponized drones and to call in CBP Predator to arrest suspects.



Cost to operate CBP Predator: $12,500/hour

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

 

[brett8883]

Brett,
You are right that last post was sloppy. This issue of delegation is worth further consideration. However, I think the statute you are referring may be barking up the wrong tree at least for what you are trying to do. I think the statute requires the creation of a Plan along with testing, but does not address implementation of the Plan.

I understand but don’t you think it’s material that lawmakers believed the FAA needed an exception from wiretapping pen/trap laws just to make a plan?

Wouldn’t it make it harder for them to justify they those laws don’t apply when lawmakers clearly think they do so much so they felt they had to give them an exception just so the FAA could make a plan?

 

[brett8883]

2017 ARC Committee included:

Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA)
California Highway Patrol, Office of Air Operations
Grand Forks Sheriff’s Office
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
Metropolitan Police Department
Miami Beach Police Department
Montgomery County Police Department
New York City Police Department
The Police Foundation

North Dakota is the only state in the country to allow law enforcement to use weaponized drones and to call in CBP Predator to arrest suspects.

View attachment 121728

Cost to operate CBP Predator: $12,500/hour

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

Despicable... Makes my blood boil. The things I want to say but won’t...?

 

[Chip]

I understand but don’t you think it’s material that lawmakers believed the FAA needed an exception from wiretapping pen/trap laws just to make a plan?

Wouldn’t it make it harder for them to justify they those laws don’t apply when lawmakers clearly think they do so much so they felt they had to give them an exception just so the FAA could make a plan?

Yes, I do think its material for exactly the reason you say! It was an astute observation on your part. But, you see, it made me rethink my comment that the FAA will have to get Congress to re-write a special exemption into the Wiretap Act. It looks like Congress can simply pass new legislation with exemption baked in without touching the Wiretap Act. But, there is another serious issue to confront which has been previously raised by others. Consent. If you give your consent to be wiretapped then you have no case. Can the FAA not then say to anyone who objects to RID:

Please take notice. The FAA is not currently requiring you to own or fly a drone anywhere. Please do not own or fly a drone if you take the slightest offense to being registered and tracked by our agents in WA DC, state and local law enforcement, and the general public at-large. If it bothers you then maybe consider some other hobby like checkers or bridge. Thank you for your cooperation and consent.

 

[lookout]

The problem is that unmanned and manned aircraft are two different operations that are trying to share the same airspace (but not all of it).

So with that the FAA is really mushing things up with these drone regulations. There was an argument about drone registration something to this effect I think I read in this thread. They were just making things up.

 

[brett8883]

Yes, I do think its material for exactly the reason you say! It was an astute observation on your part. But, you see, it made me rethink my comment that the FAA will have to get Congress to re-write a special exemption into the Wiretap Act. It looks like Congress can simply pass new legislation with exemption baked in without touching the Wiretap Act. But, there is another serious issue to confront which has been previously raised by others. Consent. If you give your consent to be wiretapped then you have no case. Can the FAA not then say to anyone who objects to RID:

Please take notice. The FAA is not currently requiring you to own or fly a drone anywhere. Please do not own or fly a drone if you take the slightest offense to being registered and tracked by our agents in WA DC, state and local law enforcement, and the general public at-large. If it bothers you then maybe consider some other hobby like checkers or bridge. Thank you for your cooperation and consent.

49 U.S. Code § 40103 (a)(2)​

A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

Citizens have a public right to use the airspace. The FAA may regulate that use but they cannot force you to give up your rights to use it. The FAA has never been granted the authority to track citizens on the ground and they have never been asked to. They are far out on a limb.

It’s the same reason the DOT can’t just make a rule that says they can track cars without consent and why LE need probable cause to search a vehicle.

Lawmakers could pass a law sure but that could be said about anything. The FAA is moving forward as if that law is already in place. They will require drone makers to sell drones that can be tracked before the FAAs authorization comes up in 2023. No new law exempting the FAA is going to come up before the reauthorization.

 

[Chip]

The problem is that unmanned and manned aircraft are two different operations that are trying to share the same airspace (but not all of it).

So with that the FAA is really mushing things up with these drone regulations. There was an argument about drone registration something to this effect I think I read in this thread. They were just making things up.

Yes, link to article is below. The article describes what happened at the federal appellate court hearing when the FAA tried to explain why its former regulation requiring registration was legal:

The FAA representative argued that FAA is allowed to “exercise discretion with regards to enforcement,” and that the agency would be “hamstrung” in enforcement without registration.

The judges in the case, however, did not appear entirely convinced when questioning the FAA representative. “Where are you getting these words from?” the judge asked the FAA representative, who stumbled over the exact phrasing of Part 336 (a). “You’re just making stuff up… that’s not what the statute says.” “Your argument is very strange to read,” commented the judge. “I wouldn’t write anything like that… I’d be laughed out of the business.”

Judge Tells FAA Rep: "You're Just Making Stuff Up."

Oral arguments took place last week in the case of Taylor vs. Huerta, brought by a drone operator against the FAA regarding drone registration.

dronelife.com

 

[Chip]

49 U.S. Code § 40103 (a)(2)
A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

Citizens have a public right to use the airspace. The FAA may regulate that use but they cannot force you to give up your rights to use it. The FAA has never been granted the authority to track citizens on the ground and they have never been asked to. They are far out on a limb.

It’s the same reason the DOT can’t just make a rule that says they can track cars without consent and why LE need probable cause to search a vehicle.

Lawmakers could pass a law sure but that could be said about anything. The FAA is moving forward as if that law is already in place. They will require drone makers to sell drones that can be tracked before the FAAs authorization comes up in 2023. No new law exempting the FAA is going to come up before the reauthorization.

Brett, our rights as citizens to transit through airspace is recognized in (a)(2). But do not forget who says they own the place. Its basically We are A1 and You are A2.

(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—

(1)The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2)A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

 

[maven4336]

Just bummed over having 10 grand in Dji drones, anyone have news on what will happen to all existing drones???

 

[Thomas B]

Just bummed over having 10 grand in Dji drones, anyone have news on what will happen to all existing drones???

I am in a position to offer them a good home to your hanger

 

[Chip]

I kind of wish the FAA would concern itself with registering and tracking owners of full size airplanes in this country before wasting millions on registering and tracking 250 gram drones.

https://wfaa.com/embeds/video/287-17e454d4-b7ec-4ed4-8f7c-f891b362a727/iframe?jwsource=em

 

[timlyg]

A lot of homework?

You have 3 simple choices:
1. Get a drone that has RID built-in
2. Get a module that will send RID and attach to your drone
3. Don't use RID, but then only fly in designed areas.

For item 1, if possible DJI will provide a firmware update that will have our drones transmit RID. If not possible, we're forced to follow item 2 or 3.

For item 2, not much different than putting on a tracker or strobe light.

What's so difficult about that?

You go right ahead, I'm not going to do this to all 1000 drones of mine.

 

[RangerEd]

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#...

The difference is that you have to buy the aeroscope to see the pilot's location. Not everybody is gonna rush out to buy one of these things, and in fact, it may not be available to the general public. With the RID the pilot's location is broadcast to anyone with the app to read the data. There should be privacy issues and I don't understand why the FAA did not limit availability to LEO's.

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?

It's more of a privacy issue. While the LEA's may have good reason to monitor the skies to "protect" the populace, the general public has no right to the same information.