Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[brett8883]

Hey @Vic Moss . To save you from having to read this whole thread, basically we are worried about the public knowing our location when we fly and also that LE will abuse the system and use it as a form of surveillance.

Do you feel like the advisory committee has the ability to persuade the FAA to:

1. Remove the ability for the general public to see the location of the pilot on the ground in real time.


2. Convince the FAA that certain privacy protections must be put in place so that LE or government agencies don’t use this data to track and spy on people?

3. Encrypt the FAA number on the broadcast so that specific pilots couldn’t be identified without going through the FAA?

I am not putting you on the spot or anything, you don’t have to say if you’d support those changes, I’m just wondering if you feel like the FAA would even listen to the advisory committee if they made these recommendations. Or is the rule final and nothing can be done about it at this point?

Thanks in advance

 

[Vic Moss]

Hey @Vic Moss . To save you from having to read this whole thread, basically we are worried about the public knowing our location when we fly and also that LE will abuse the system and use it as a form of surveillance.

Do you feel like the advisory committee has the ability to persuade the FAA to:

1. Remove the ability for the general public to see the location of the pilot on the ground in real time.


2. Convince the FAA that certain privacy protections must be put in place so that LE or government agencies don’t use this data to track and spy on people?

3. Encrypt the FAA number on the broadcast so that specific pilots couldn’t be identified without going through the FAA?

I am not putting you on the spot or anything, you don’t have to say if you’d support those changes, I’m just wondering if you feel like the FAA would even listen to the advisory committee if they made these recommendations. Or is the rule final and nothing can be done about it at this point?

Thanks in advance

The FAA gives the DAC its marching orders. The pressure for them to do that would need to come from outside the DAC members. We don't set the agenda.

Personally, I'd love to see the pilot location obscured. But that is also not up to the FAA. It's the Federal Security Agencies that pushed that.

As far as the RID rule being final, yes it is. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked a bit one way or another. Or, as a community we could push for better protection from those of who don't want us in the air.

 

[brett8883]

The FAA gives the DAC its marching orders. The pressure for them to do that would need to come from outside the DAC members. We don't set the agenda.

Personally, I'd love to see the pilot location obscured. But that is also not up to the FAA. It's the Federal Security Agencies that pushed that.

As far as the RID rule being final, yes it is. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked a bit one way or another. Or, as a community we could push for better protection from those of who don't want us in the air.

Thanks for the fast response much appreciated.

 

[brett8883]

So @anotherlab looks like the DAC isn’t the right avenue to get this changed.

I reached out to my senator and got this response after a few weeks, I guess they didn’t have a form response already written up for this subject. Still the intern failed to understand it’s not a proposed rule it’s a final rule even though I explained that.

Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed rule related to the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

As you know, in December 2019 the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to the remote identification of UAS. The proposed rule would apply to recreational or commercial UAS operations with limited exceptions. It would require the registration of existing aircraft, and the standardization of remote identification capabilities for new UAS. If finalized as drafted, the rule would allow for a 36 month compliance window for operators.

UAS are no longer nascent technologies; they are widely employed in commercial, industrial, and first responder environments. As U.S. airspace becomes more congested, the task of managing low altitude airspace will continue to grow in complexity, requiring the cooperation of all stakeholders. It is my hope that any finalized rule will reflect the interests of UAS operators while providing protections for public safety.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook

I really don’t think this avenue is gonna work either. We are just too few to be able to make a difference through political means. I happen to think this would be much more expensive too.

Which leaves us with what options?

 

[Chip]

In a nut shell what did he say? The FAA can do whatever they want?

Brett, my apology I was trying to inject a little levity into the discussion because it was Friday night. I think Rupprecht is the best lawyer to ask whether any litigation is planned to enjoin or overturn any part of the regs, if so, by who and on what basis, and is there any chance of getting encryption so location is visible only to law enforcement? He must be very busy but he does a lot of public speaking and writing and likes to educate as near as I can tell. Will give it a try.

 

[Chip]

The FAA made two points about this. Encryption would be a burden. And they said the location of the operator should be public information.

The issue of encryption being a burden is just a technology issue and can be resolved. The second issue is basically the hill that they are going to die on. If you go after that with litigation, they'll just dig in deeper. To change their viewpoint, you have to work with the FAA. Actual communications, face to face (or via Zoom). The drone operators on the FAA Drone Advisory Committee have a better opportunity to change this.

What do you figure is the FAA's reason for making pilot location public information? If they do not have a very good reason, then their reg should die on the hill. Is there some national public citizens group demanding a public broadcast signal to expose pilots nationwide? Or is it a trick to get around state and federal privacy and wiretapping laws? With zero regard for pilot safety? If so, then their reg should die on the hill.

 

[Chip]

Looked up list of FAA lobbyists. Tried to find MOTHERS DEMANDING PUBLIC BROADCAST OF DRONE PILOT'S LOCATION EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, but no luck.

Annual Number of Clients/Lobbyists Lobbying Federal Aviation Administration​

Federal Aviation Administration Lobbying Profile

In 2019, 234 clients lobbied Federal Aviation Administration. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[brett8883]

Looked up list of FAA lobbyists. Tried to find MOTHERS DEMANDING PUBLIC BROADCAST OF DRONE PILOT'S LOCATION EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, but no luck.

Annual Number of Clients/Lobbyists Lobbying Federal Aviation Administration​

Federal Aviation Administration Lobbying Profile

In 2019, 234 clients lobbied Federal Aviation Administration. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

That’s pretty interesting. Lots of drone affiliated companies on here.

DJI spent $1.4 million in lobbying last year alone which seems like a lot for a foreign company of their size. That’s double from the year before

 

[Chip]

Check out this link is to FAA Docket with file copy of FAA's memo of meeting with AMAZON on 11/10/20. Ex parte lunch perhaps after the Comments period has closed? AMAZON gave the FAA its marching orders that UAV operations cannot and should not be conducted with anonymity.

FAA DOCKET -- AMAZON

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum
Date: November 10, 2020
Subject: Summary of the Amazon.com, Inc. meeting with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Regarding the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
Final Rule Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On November 10, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs hosted a meeting between the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
FAA, the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon expressed support for the Remote Identification of
Unmanned Aircraft Systems rulemaking, and requested the rule be finalized by December 2020.
They expressed support for using both network and broadcast remote identification to comply
with the rule’s requirements, and they requested that both technologies be incorporated in the
final rule. They also stated that a fundamental component of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
traffic management is to ensure the privacy of business operations, however, operations cannot
and should not be conducted with anonymity.

 

[brett8883]

Check out this link is to FAA Docket with file copy of FAA's memo of meeting with AMAZON on 11/10/20. Ex parte lunch perhaps after the Comments period has closed? AMAZON gave the FAA its marching orders that UAV operations cannot and should not be conducted with anonymity.

FAA DOCKET -- AMAZON

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum
Date: November 10, 2020
Subject: Summary of the Amazon.com, Inc. meeting with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Regarding the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
Final Rule Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On November 10, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs hosted a meeting between the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
FAA, the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon expressed support for the Remote Identification of
Unmanned Aircraft Systems rulemaking, and requested the rule be finalized by December 2020.
They expressed support for using both network and broadcast remote identification to comply
with the rule’s requirements, and they requested that both technologies be incorporated in the
final rule. They also stated that a fundamental component of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
traffic management is to ensure the privacy of business operations, however, operations cannot
and should not be conducted with anonymity.

Yep there you go. That’s the reason right there.

Amazon spent over $18,000,000 ? lobbying the FAA in 2020.

This is why we have to do a lawsuit. We’ll never win by other means.

I don’t even understand what Amazon means by “operations should not be conducted with anonymity.” What’s that even mean?

 

[brett8883]

How much do I have to pay to get a luncheon with the FAA?

 

[Chip]

How much do I have to pay to get a luncheon with the FAA?

As much as $18,000,000, depending on what you want to talk about and if you want to include lunch after the Comments period has closed for everyone else.

 

[Chip]

I don’t even understand what Amazon means by “operations should not be conducted with anonymity.” What’s that even mean?

I think it means DATA COLLECTION. That's the Amazon's angle! Imagine owning or being able to use the data for every drone flight conducted anywhere and everywhere in the US, from 250 grams on up.

 

[brett8883]

Hey @Vic Moss

Do you know anything about how using a “session ID” instead of the drone’s serial number works?

In it’s Privacy Impact Assessment the FAA says, “Additionally, the rule allows operators to use a Session ID instead of broadcasting the serial number. A Session ID is a one-time-use identification that can add an additional layer of confidentiality to the information being broadcasted.”

I remember reading this in the final rule but it was so vague I didn’t think much of it. But in this document the FAA is clarifying that instead of using a serial number in the broadcast, which would allow anyone to track your movements over time, you can use a one time “session ID” which would make it impossible to associate the pilot of flight A with flight B without going through the FAA.

How does the FAA intend to get the session ID from the pilot to associate the the session ID with the pilot’s information?

An example I could think of is the pilot would go online to drone zone, log in, and have the website generate a session ID to be used for the flight. The pilot would then enter the session ID into the broadcast information.

Any sense of how this would work? It’s only for standard RID? Not for broadcast modules?

 

[brett8883]

I think it means DATA COLLECTION. That's the Amazon's angle! Imagine owning or being able to use the data for every drone flight conducted anywhere and everywhere in the US, from 250 grams on up.

My step mom thinks those Echo things are the devil. She got one for Christmas a few years back from my cousin and she shrieked in horror when she opened it. She made my cousin take it out to his car and forbid it in her house. We no longer exchange gifts with that side of the family.

I told her Siri on her iPhone does the same thing and she almost had a heart attack.

Can’t blame her. Good to see older people take cyber security seriously.

 

[Vic Moss]

Hey @Vic Moss

Do you know anything about how using a “session ID” instead of the drone’s serial number works?

In it’s Privacy Impact Assessment the FAA says, “Additionally, the rule allows operators to use a Session ID instead of broadcasting the serial number. A Session ID is a one-time-use identification that can add an additional layer of confidentiality to the information being broadcasted.”

I remember reading this in the final rule but it was so vague I didn’t think much of it. But in this document the FAA is clarifying that instead of using a serial number in the broadcast, which would allow anyone to track your movements over time, you can use a one time “session ID” which would make it impossible to associate the pilot of flight A with flight B without going through the FAA.

How does the FAA intend to get the session ID from the pilot to associate the the session ID with the pilot’s information?

An example I could think of is the pilot would go online to drone zone, log in, and have the website generate a session ID to be used for the flight. The pilot would then enter the session ID into the broadcast information.

Any sense of how this would work? It’s only for standard RID? Not for broadcast modules?

The Session ID was part of the Internet Transmission system. So as of now, it's not available under current RID rules. They will be bringing it back at some point.

Basically, instead of the information packet required under current rules, the Session ID will be broadcast instead. The receiver (smart phone) will only receive the Session ID number. If they need to know the rest (& are authorized to see it), they will take that Session ID to the cops or FAA and be provided the rest of the information. But it will only be released to those who are in a position to need to know.

 

[brett8883]

The Session ID was part of the Internet Transmission system. So as of now, it's not available under current RID rules. They will be bringing it back at some point.

I did remember seeing it the final rule so I looked it up and it is in the final rule page 8.

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf

“Operators may choose whether to use the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or a session ID (e.g., an alternative form of identification that provides additional privacy to the operator) as the unique identifier.”

Any clue on how this will work without internet?

 

[brett8883]

BTW @Vic Moss that Privacy Impact Assessment I referenced is dated 1/15/2021.

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

They hinge a lot of of why the rule doesn’t violate privacy laws on that session ID.

 

[Vic Moss]

I did remember seeing it the final rule so I looked it up and it is in the final rule page 8.

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf

“Operators may choose whether to use the serial number of the unmanned aircraft or a session ID (e.g., an alternative form of identification that provides additional privacy to the operator) as the unique identifier.”

Any clue on how this will work without internet?

Not yet. Might be a “notify and fly” system. That would work the best.

 

[brett8883]

One other question for you @Vic Moss if you would. We talk about “the app” a lot in our circles but in reading the rule and the Privacy Impact Assessment they never refer to an app they just say “equipment” or “receiver.” They also talk a lot above being technology neutral meaning you can use whatever technology you want as long as it fulfills the “performance-based” requirements.

Have you heard that the FAA intends to make a universal app that can receive the broadcasts from all these different technologies on a smartphone? In reading the final rule I don’t get any sense that they are saying the broadcast has to receivable by an app on a smart phone. Just some kind of receiver. Do you have any insight into how that would work? Who is making this app?