Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?
- Thread starter brett8883
- Start date
I know how you feel. I just bought a $12,000 Inspire 2 but I think there’s a pretty good possibility DJI will update the firmware to existing drones so they will comply. Otherwise they are going to have to come out with all new versions of all their lines or stop selling drones in 18 months which seems a unlikely.
The flying over people rules for Part 107 pilots is likely why we haven’t seen a Mavic 3 or Inspire 3 yet.
It's not a matter of finding your name and home address, it's a matter of finding within 100ft of where you are piloting.
Also location of AC since that can be followed remotely from its broadcast without visually following it, and finding where it lands. That's a concern delivery companies have. Why would they be concerned if the information wasn't public?
Also location of AC since that can be followed remotely from its broadcast without visually following it, and finding where it lands. That's a concern delivery companies have. Why would they be concerned if the information wasn't public?
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
I fly mainly in rural areas out in the open most of the time and have no reason to hide my LZ. But I do take precautions about those who might wish to interfere with me. Maybe I'd have a different view if I were flying from heavy populated areas especially if the flight was job related. But I fly for rec purposes & I avoid populated places when possible. I've only had a few bad interactions with the public.
I will say my location data where I'm operating from should not be accessible by the general public, only those authorized. If the public can use it like the Flight Radar app I really don't have an issue of them seeing an aircraft number and its location. Actually I'd like that to be encoded as well so if someone makes a claim I'm flying out of compliance, they can take it up with LE/FAA or other authorities and let them handle it. I can see an issue where some public idiot demands to see my aircraft number because they think what they saw on thier phone app was me when it wasn't.
I will say my location data where I'm operating from should not be accessible by the general public, only those authorized. If the public can use it like the Flight Radar app I really don't have an issue of them seeing an aircraft number and its location. Actually I'd like that to be encoded as well so if someone makes a claim I'm flying out of compliance, they can take it up with LE/FAA or other authorities and let them handle it. I can see an issue where some public idiot demands to see my aircraft number because they think what they saw on thier phone app was me when it wasn't.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
I support your main argument 100%. However, maybe not rely exclusively on the cell phone tracking case of Carpenter v. United States and pick where to initiate the battle very carefully. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides a minimal standard that protects everyone from unreasonable search and seizure across the country. But every state has the right to set higher standards to protect privacy in the language of their state constitutions or in statutes passed by state legislatures and many have done just that.
Consider CA Penal Code Section 637.7 which was accompanied with the statement that “The Legislature finds and declares that the right to privacy is fundamental in a free and civilized society and that the increasing use of electronic surveillance devices is eroding personal liberty. The Legislature declares that electronic tracking of a person’s location without that person’s knowledge violates that person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.”
CA Penal Code Sec. 637.7:
637.7. (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
I agree 100%. And let us all remember that it was DJI which originally brought up the risk to our personal safety caused by drone tracking:
Although UAS do not carry people, and so do not implicate free movement of people, identification information does indicate the location of the person operating the UAS, thus revealing the activities of persons and businesses. The interest in privacy is, unfortunately, arguably heightened compared to manned aircraft considering the occasional violent confrontations that UAS operators have faced over the last few years, including physical assault and gunfire. A system that enables belligerent individuals to look up the name and address of, and then knock on the door of, a local UAS operator, is not acceptable and will detrimentally impact UAS operators who are operating safely and doing nothing wrong.
The personal information of the owner (or operator) should be accessible to law enforcement only, who can investigate complaints of unlawful or dangerous conduct. Privacy and personal safety interests compel an identification system that protects operator business interests and discloses personally identifiable information only to law enforcement agencies.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
The Aeroscope has been likened to a license plate reader for drones. Its not a bad analogy but that’s the problem. Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) have been controversial in several states and local communities. Some states like CA have enacted laws which permit law enforcement to use ALPRs in certain circumstances but only under strict rules specially designed to reduce risk of misusing the technology or mishandling personal ID and location data. Check out the CA laws on ALPRs and ask yourself has anyone even started writing the laws, rules and regulations for all this drone "license plate" data?
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.51
Duties of Automated License Plate Reader Operator
An ALPR Operator shall do all of the following:
a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system, or to collect ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR system responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR operator will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.52(a)
Record of Access; Use of Information
If an ALPR Operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information the ALRP operator shall do both of the following:
a) Maintain a record of that access. At a minimum, the record shall include all of the following:
(1) The date and time the information is accessed.
(2) The license plate number or other data elements used to query the ALPR system.
(3) The username of the person who accesses the information, and, as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated.
(4) The purpose for accessing the information.
(b) Require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy required by subdivision (b) of Section 1798.90.51.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.53
Duties of ALPR End-User
An ALPR end-user shall do all of the following:
a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for accessing and using ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information accessed or used, and compliance with all applicable privacy laws and a process for periodic system audits.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR information responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR end-user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.54
Civil Action
(a) In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.
(b) The court may award a combination of any one or more of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
(2) Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law.
(3) Reasonable attorney s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(4) Other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.51
Duties of Automated License Plate Reader Operator
An ALPR Operator shall do all of the following:
a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system, or to collect ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR system responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR operator will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.52(a)
Record of Access; Use of Information
If an ALPR Operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information the ALRP operator shall do both of the following:
a) Maintain a record of that access. At a minimum, the record shall include all of the following:
(1) The date and time the information is accessed.
(2) The license plate number or other data elements used to query the ALPR system.
(3) The username of the person who accesses the information, and, as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated.
(4) The purpose for accessing the information.
(b) Require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy required by subdivision (b) of Section 1798.90.51.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.53
Duties of ALPR End-User
An ALPR end-user shall do all of the following:
a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for accessing and using ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information accessed or used, and compliance with all applicable privacy laws and a process for periodic system audits.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR information responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR end-user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.
CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.54
Civil Action
(a) In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.
(b) The court may award a combination of any one or more of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
(2) Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law.
(3) Reasonable attorney s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(4) Other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
Attachments
Sorry to sound ignorant.., but what is the point you’re trying to make. Seems off topic.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
If anyone tells you that Remote ID is just a license plate for drones its worth asking whether there are laws in place that regulate the collection, storage, access and use of the Remote ID information by law enforcement in their jurisdiction? Because that is where the analogy usually breaks down.
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
See, the important part is "without that person’s knowledge violates that person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” So, being a drone operator you should be aware of RID and by that are fully knowledgeable that your location and is being tracked...thus does not violate this tenent.
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
How so? Cops regularly scan and store your plate number and can track your movements. Ever see those cameras on the back of the cop car? They can access all your info simply by calling in your plate number. No warrant needed. So the license plate comparison holds. The actual main difference is that no one is going to store your RID info...it's all real-time.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
If little Johnny is flying his drone down at the park how would he know he is being tracked by a sex predator with a cell phone? Or does little Johnny just have to live with it?
Thanks for your support, advice and information!
I am certainly not a lawyer so the Carpenter V United States idea was really just one idea to explore with a real lawyer.
The bottom line is the whole thing just doesn’t smell right. It may be unprecedented in the history of the US that the government is requiring citizens to proactively send location data to the government for the stated purpose of law enforcement. Some might say that ABS-out rules are the same but ABS actually serves the purpose of allowing other pilots to see where other aircraft are so they can avoid them. It actually servers the purpose of making the skys safer. It’s primary function isn’t to catch violators. It also isn’t required in Class G airspace.
RID on the other hand is designed only to catch and prosecute violators. Per the FAA’s final rule UAS are strictly forbidden from using ABS-out technology which would have allowed manned aircraft pilots to see and avoid drones. This RID rule has no safety function only enforcement.
More than electronic license plate readers the analogy would seem to me more like if the government required on board GPS units in cars that let cops identify speeders remotely and track down violators. I firmly believe the public would never accept such measures. I don’t see how this is any different.
Little Johnny is supposed to be 16 to fly by himself. I suppose a sub 250g wouldn't need him to be 16, since it won't need to be registered, but then neither does it require RID.
Many of you are only pointing out govt use of RID. Let's not forget the public at large will have access to the info.
For the car analogy, it's as if you could tune into an FM station where you could hear the car's plate number, where the car is and where it came from, how fast it is driving, right from the comfort of your living room.
For the car analogy, it's as if you could tune into an FM station where you could hear the car's plate number, where the car is and where it came from, how fast it is driving, right from the comfort of your living room.
So it’s ok for a pediphile to target a 16 year old? I dont understand where you are going with this. What about a 20 year old? An 80 year old? What circumstance would you be ok with a sex predator tracking anyone?
Last edited:
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
I may have the gilded the lilly a bit with the reference to Johnny! Brett, you are right on target with this:
More than electronic license plate readers the analogy would seem to me more like if the government required on board GPS units in cars that let cops identify speeders remotely and track down violators. I firmly believe the public would never accept such measures. I don’t see how this is any different.
If I may expound a bit further. The US Supreme Court said that government could not put GPS device on a suspect's vehicle and track its movements without a search warrant in US v Jones (2012). The US Supreme Court said that government may not track a suspect's movements by using cell site simulators and their cell phone without a search warrant in US v Carpenter (2018).
I do not see how anyone can trivialize the idea of the FAA forcing UAV pilots from corporate commercial to Joe Blow Hobbyist to publicly broadcast their ID, location and flight details to the general public.
Last edited:
I'm not, but using the little kid angle for sympathy won't work. My answer would be FAA's answer, and probably the court's answer.
But if you used an adult as an example, which we have been doing, they might listen as an adult would be legal to pilot. Unfortunately that had been brought up during proposal comments and FAA's response as I was made to understand is laughable.
Similar threads
- Locked
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Mini 2 The Shakey bridge in Cork City- Started by FlyingDutchman90
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-