Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[Vic Moss]

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?

The FAA won't make any apps. That will be left up to app designers.

I was part of an app demo a couple of days ago. It will be interesting to see just how many these end up on the market. They will all have to comply with the same standards (again, which we're waiting for), and each will look different.

Odds are there won't a dongle needed. That would make it less accessible to folks and local PD. Needing to pay for additional equipment would be self-defeating for the rules.

 

[brett8883]

The FAA won't make any apps. That will be left up to app designers.

I was part of an app demo a couple of days ago. It will be interesting to see just how many these end up on the market. They will all have to comply with the same standards (again, which we're waiting for), and each will look different.

Odds are there won't a dongle needed. That would make it less accessible to folks and local PD. Needing to pay for additional equipment would be self-defeating for the rules.

Thanks @Vic Moss

 

[Chip]

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.

That is great find. Very informative document that brings me some new perspective along with some other FAA materials I have been reading. The FAA obviously has to weigh and balance multiple concerns and considerations. Its a complex process and the end results could vary in the natural and legal course.

 

[brett8883]

That is great find. Very informative document that brings me some new perspective along with some other FAA materials I have been reading. The FAA obviously has to weigh and balance multiple concerns and considerations. Its a complex process and the end results could vary in the natural and legal course.

Yea much better response to our concerns then suggesting “community outreach.”

 

[brett8883]

I just heard back from Jonathan Rupprecht!

He said,

“Hey Brett,

Yes, we are intending to bring litigation.

Tyler set up a place for people to donate. RDQ v. FAA Court Case - (Challenging Remote ID!!), organized by Tyler Brennan

Regarding help, if there are any attorneys who want to volunteer, that would be maybe helpful.

Sincerely,
Jonathan”

So litigation is a go and from the best guy to do it! He’s been way ahead of us this whole time

 

[anotherlab]

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

But @Vic Moss did provide some additional information. The requirement for the controller's location to be in the RID packet did not originate from within the FAA, but from Federal Security Agencies. Litigating the FAA is not going to change that.

 

[brett8883]

But @Vic Moss did provide some additional information. The requirement for the controller's location to be in the RID packet did not originate from within the FAA, but from Federal Security Agencies. Litigating the FAA is not going to change that.

It’s the FAA’s rule so the FAA is the one to hold accountable.

 

[anotherlab]

It’s the FAA’s rule so the FAA is the one to hold accountable.

It's their rule, but they were mandated to include it. From what @Vic Moss posted earlier in this thread, it doesn't sound like they have an option for scrapping that requirement.

 

[brett8883]

It's their rule, but they were mandated to include it. From what @Vic Moss posted earlier in this thread, it doesn't sound like they have an option for scrapping that requirement.

The FAA regulates airspace and aviation nobody else. They take mandates from Congress and the courts. Everybody else can only make suggestions. That’s all I understood Vic Moss’ post to mean.

Besides why on gods greens earths would the FBI or DHS want Joe Redneck from down the street to be able to see where you are flying your drone from?

 

[Vic Moss]

DHS wanted this for their own use. You'd have to ask them why. But DHS in the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. When it comes to regulations about safety and such, they pretty much get what they want. That's just the state of things right now.

 

[brett8883]

DHS wanted this for their own use. You'd have to ask them why. But DHS in the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. When it comes to regulations about safety and such, they pretty much get what they want. That's just the state of things right now.

Never the less we don’t live in a police state and illegal rules should be challenged in court.

 

[brett8883]

Guys we are past the “should we sue or not” stage. There will be a lawsuit and they’ve raised $35,000 already

 

[Chip]

DHS wanted this for their own use. You'd have to ask them why. But DHS in the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. When it comes to regulations about safety and such, they pretty much get what they want. That's just the state of things right now.

Yes, I would like to know the DHS reason. And the facts which support it. I am trying to find a document which shows what FAA received from federal security agency that influenced its decision. I dont buy that FAA can say we did it because they told us too. I did come up with this document which is not directly on point but still interesting and weirdly ironic.

HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL FINAL REPORT OF THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES SUBCOMMITTEE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS February 24, 2020

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/final_report_hsac_emerging_technologies_subcommittee_uas_508_compliance.pdf

I could barely get past page 5 which lists the co-chairs of the DHS Subcommittee:

VP of Booz Allen Hamilton. The company that hired, trained and was supervising Edward Snowden when he walked off the secret job site in Hawaii with NSA's Keys to the Kingdom.

And VP/Chief of Security of the NFL.

So, I guess we have the likes of Booz Allen and the NFL serving as key DHS/FAA advisers on matters of drone security and privacy.

 

[anotherlab]

Besides why on gods greens earths would the FBI or DHS want Joe Redneck from down the street to be able to see where you are flying your drone from?

DHS doesn't care whether or not the public can see the position of the operator. They just care that they (the DHS) can see it.

 

[brett8883]

DHS doesn't care whether or not the public can see the position of the operator. They just care that they (the DHS) can see it.

Exactly my point!

 

[anotherlab]

Guys we are past the “should we sue or not” stage. There will be a lawsuit and they’ve raised $35,000 already

You are now at the "should I contribute my money?" stage. Before contributing, make sure you know exactly what the goals are.

• If it's to block Remote ID, that ship has sailed.
• If it's to block the inclusion of the controller's location in the Remote ID data packet, there are valid reasons for including that information and I don't see a legal argument that would hold up. (But, not a lawyer).
• If it's to prevent the general public from accessing that information, you might have a shot. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that they will prevail. And it's going to cost a lot more than $35k. That would get you between 100 and 150 hours of work from a lawyer.

 

[brett8883]

You are now at the "should I contribute my money?" stage. Before contributing, make sure you know exactly what the goals are.

• If it's to block Remote ID, that ship has sailed.
• If it's to block the inclusion of the controller's location in the Remote ID data packet, there are valid reasons for including that information and I don't see a legal argument that would hold up. (But, not a lawyer).
• If it's to prevent the general public from accessing that information, you might have a shot. But I wouldn't bet money on it.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. That doesn't mean that they will prevail. And it's going to cost a lot more than $35k. That would get you between 100 and 150 hours of work from a lawyer.

I’d take any of those outcomes.

Anybody can file a lawsuit but this is being filed by the best guy in the business. You never know if a lawsuit will prevail or not but this is the best chance we have for fighting back against a rule that is widely seen as unreasonable for one reason or another. Not all the reasons are the same.

We can either fight or allow our liberties to be confiscated. The choice is yours.

 

[Chip]

Before contributing, make sure you know exactly what the goals are.

• If it's to block Remote ID, that ship has sailed.

The ship has certainly left the harbor. But, would you at least grant with a visible list and a long journey ahead?

 

[Chip]

Anyone know if RID requirement was in the 2018 FAA recertification act or somehow implied? If so, then blame congress. FAA would only be filling in the implementation details.

DHS wanted this for their own use. You'd have to ask them why. But DHS in the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. When it comes to regulations about safety and such, they pretty much get what they want. That's just the state of things right now.

So, been trying to drill down into DHS legal authority to force remote ID and found this:
Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Legal Authorities

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0502_cisa_dhs-cuas-legal-authorities-factsheet.pdf

Excerpt:
The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 grants the Department of Homeland Security statutory authority to counter credible threats from unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset. This authority is paramount to the Department’s mission to protect and secure the Homeland from evolving threats. The Department is in the process of coordinating with Components and stakeholders regarding the need for additional counter-UAS (CUAS) authorities.

If forced public broadcast of pilot location came as directive from DHS, then DHS is trying to pull off the biggest mission creep in world history. From statutory authority to protect specific covered assets and facilities to implementing a program of mass surveillance to monitor every single drone flight throughout the entire country including one millimeter off the ground in your own backyard.

 

[Chip]

Another excerpt from Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Legal Authorities:

Privacy Protection

The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 Act requires the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to: Ensure intercept, acquisition, or access of communications to or from UAS is consistent with First and Fourth amendment protections and applicable Federal laws. Only intercept, acquire, or access communications to or from UAS only in support of an authorized CUAS action.

Where did all of that go?