That's the FAA nonsense I was referring to that I heard about online.To everybody here that is concerned with the crime and safety implications of the general public having your location while flying.
I thought it was necessary to share the FAAs response to your concerns that is buried deep in the 470 pages of the final remote ID rule. They suggest that "community outreach is a better vehicle to tackle these issues" and that if you are concerned you should only "operate from a secure or restricted access location as necessary."
https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf page 113-
"Some commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other crimes. Though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters regarding personal safety, the FAA emphasizes that there are rules against interfering with an aircraft. The FAA finds that removal of the proposed requirement is not the appropriate solution, rather community outreach and other precautions are better suited to tackle these issues. Some commenters noted that sharing of the control station location is counter to the current practice of locking aircraft doors; however, the FAA finds that the analogous and appropriate practice would be to operate from a secure or restricted access location as necessary."
Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?
- Thread starter brett8883
- Start date
That's the FAA nonsense I was referring to that I heard about online.
My location isn't in the national airspace. It's on the ground! The drone is in the national airspace and we don't have an issue with that. I am no less an American protected under the Constitution flying a drone than doing any other activity.
This is a quote from the FAA themselves
- Use of Airspace. 49 U.S.C. § 40103 establishes a public right of transit through the navigable airspace and vests the FAA with authority to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This includes ensuring that compliant aircraft (including UAS) may move through the airspace without improper interference. For example, detection systems may lead to the identification of both legitimate airspace users as well as unlawful activity. Additional analysis is necessary to identify whether an operation identified by a detection system is in violation of FAA regulation before engaging in an operational response. This also includes identifying and working to address any potential collateral impacts of detection technology or systems on the safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace System.
Ok guys while we have some momentum I think what we should do is send the FAA emails to express our frustration with their rule. This is a no cost action and at the very least the FAA will know where we stand. I have written a a short email for your consideration that I think is restrained but comes from the heart.
The FAA email address is [email protected] and if you want to copy and paste my email exactly, change it, paraphrase it or do your own thing but I would invite you to send something. It isn't gonna do any good if I am the only one that does it.
My name is Brett Burkhart and I am a Remote Pilot Certificate holder and also an active member of the UAV community.
There is great concern within the community about the Remote ID final rule as it relates to the privacy and safety of remote pilots. Specifically, the intention for the general public to intercept the location data for the control station which clearly puts the Remote Pilot in a danger of harassment, larceny, and assault.
We have read the FAA’s response to our concern in the Remote ID final rule:
We find this response disturbingly inadequate and offensive. The FAA states on their website, “Our first commitment is to safety” and, “Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.” However, Remote Pilots must not be included in that commitment. We are told to fend for ourselves. Worse, the FAA wishes to put us further into harms way. For the sake of satisfying public curiosity? When the America people asked the FAA for transparency they meant for YOUR transparency. They did not mean for Remote Pilot's private lives and business' to be put on display for anyone to monitor.
I ask you to please reconsider this aspect of the rule and put pilot safety, security, and privacy back to the top of your priorities where it belongs.
Thank you,
Brett Burkhart
The FAA email address is [email protected] and if you want to copy and paste my email exactly, change it, paraphrase it or do your own thing but I would invite you to send something. It isn't gonna do any good if I am the only one that does it.
My name is Brett Burkhart and I am a Remote Pilot Certificate holder and also an active member of the UAV community.
There is great concern within the community about the Remote ID final rule as it relates to the privacy and safety of remote pilots. Specifically, the intention for the general public to intercept the location data for the control station which clearly puts the Remote Pilot in a danger of harassment, larceny, and assault.
We have read the FAA’s response to our concern in the Remote ID final rule:
“Though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters regarding personal safety, the FAA emphasizes that there are rules against interfering with an aircraft. The FAA finds that removal of the proposed requirement is not the appropriate solution, rather community outreach and other precautions are better suited to tackle these issues.”
We find this response disturbingly inadequate and offensive. The FAA states on their website, “Our first commitment is to safety” and, “Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.” However, Remote Pilots must not be included in that commitment. We are told to fend for ourselves. Worse, the FAA wishes to put us further into harms way. For the sake of satisfying public curiosity? When the America people asked the FAA for transparency they meant for YOUR transparency. They did not mean for Remote Pilot's private lives and business' to be put on display for anyone to monitor.
I ask you to please reconsider this aspect of the rule and put pilot safety, security, and privacy back to the top of your priorities where it belongs.
Thank you,
Brett Burkhart
Those little google cars are worse about privacy invasion than the drone is. They don't even care. But shoot, they just wiretap us all the time with our smartphone.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
Yes, I agree. When I read that Jaffe v Google case I was shocked to learn that Google intentionally drove through neighborhoods with array of sensors collecting unencrypted wireless "data packets." That really takes some cheek as our friends in UK would say.
Of course, this is one reason why I was so intrigued to read that even Google WING thinks Remote ID is gross invasion of privacy. I mean my gosh how enormously egregious must the privacy invasion be to offend Google? And how do you like their solution, the internet connection? Many think that's even worse yet!
Broadcast-Only Remote Identification of Drones May Have Unintended Consequences for American Consumers – Wing drone delivery
RID is a crucial technology for drones as it can provide the identity and location of a drone, facilitating transparency for governments, law enforcement, community members and operators alike. In the final rule, instead of looking to the future of the industry and supporting a secure...
wing.com
‘The FAA’s decision to have drones broadcast their location might let observers track your movements, figuring out where you go, where you live, and where and when you receive packages, among other examples.
“American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky,” Wing argues.
Last edited:
I would rephrase ", Remote Pilots must not be included in that commitment" to instead read ", Remote Pilots do not appear be included in that commitment."
The original can be interpreted to mean we don't want to be included in FAA's commitment to safety. I had to read that section a few times to understand what was meant.
To be fair Wing wants network based Remote ID which I think we all believe is even worse.Yes, I agree. When I read that Jaffe v Google case I was shocked to learn that Google intentionally drove through neighborhoods with array of sensors collecting unencrypted wireless "data packets." That really takes some cheek as our friends in UK would say.
Of course, this is one reason why I was so intrigued to read that even Google WING thinks Remote ID is gross invasion of privacy. I mean my gosh how enormously egregious must the privacy invasion be to offend Google? And how do you like their solution, the internet connection? Many think that's even worse yet!
Broadcast-Only Remote Identification of Drones May Have Unintended Consequences for American Consumers – Wing drone delivery
RID is a crucial technology for drones as it can provide the identity and location of a drone, facilitating transparency for governments, law enforcement, community members and operators alike. In the final rule, instead of looking to the future of the industry and supporting a secure...
‘The FAA’s decision to have drones broadcast their location might let observers track your movements, figuring out where you go, where you live, and where and when you receive packages, among other examples.
“American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky,” Wing argues.
View attachment 121476
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.
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.
baddog
Well-Known Member
Then you should have worded your survey as such. I voted, that I am for remote ID. What I don't like is that the general public has access to it. Law enforcement, public safety entities, Search & Rescue crews, I am fine with them being able to identify me.
I tried but it wouldn’t let me make the question that long. I tried to expand in the first comment of the thread.
You can always change your vote if you’d like.
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
I agree but didn't vote. I'd suspect if there was an option to "I'm OK with RID provided personal data is encrypted so only the necessary agencies have access to it" many might vote that way.
If someone complains about my drone, I don't have an issue if LE (or other authorized agencies) can determine where I am flying while I'm operating or even be able to find that information at a later date. That seems to scare many here. But data access by the general public? Nope bad idea.
In my response to the FAA request of my opinion on SRID I wrote:
Lastly, I’m reluctant to embrace the idea of the public being able to track drones. This might result in confrontations between drone operators and the public. The media has demonized drones and those operating them, so many within the public take a dim view of drone operations, even legal operations. Why deputize (so to speak) the untrained public? Let law enforcement deal with out of compliance flying. At minimum, the public must not be able to gather a citizen’s name or address from any type of remote ID. Notifying the public about my name and/or location puts me, my family and my property at risk.
Hey @Chip ive got something really interesting for you.
In that FAA Advisory I attached the other day they cite
What’s interesting is it addresses some of the legal jeopardy the FAA might have encountered in regards to the Wiretapping laws and such
(g)Applicability of Other Laws.—
Section 46502 of this title, section 32 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Aircraft Sabotage Act), section 1031 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986),[2] sections 2510–2522 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Wiretap Act), and sections 3121–3127 of title 18,United States Code (commonly known as the Pen/Trap Statute), shall not apply to activities authorized by the Administrator pursuant to subsection [3] (c) and (d).
So the FAA is off the hook.
But not so fast!
It also says:
(4)Non-delegation.—
The plan shall not delegate any authority granted to the Administrator under this section to other Federal, State, local, territorial, or tribal agencies, or an airportsponsor, as defined in section 47102 of title 49,United States Code.
It actually says this twice.
The FAA has been very clear and was clear in the final rule that RID is for local and state LE to use. At no point are they making the argument that it will be the FAA out there receiving these broadcasts. It says they can’t delegate that authority but they have. They’ve delegated it to anyone and everyone! This is the smoking gun! I’m reluctant to go further than that. They are clearly breaking the law as written and clearly the intent of the law as well.
This is just as slam dunk as the aircraft registration thing.
In that FAA Advisory I attached the other day they cite
49 U.S. Code § 44810 - Airport safety and airspace hazard mitigation and enforcement
As being the statue that gives the FAA the authority to detect UAV’s.What’s interesting is it addresses some of the legal jeopardy the FAA might have encountered in regards to the Wiretapping laws and such
(g)Applicability of Other Laws.—
Section 46502 of this title, section 32 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Aircraft Sabotage Act), section 1031 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986),[2] sections 2510–2522 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Wiretap Act), and sections 3121–3127 of title 18,United States Code (commonly known as the Pen/Trap Statute), shall not apply to activities authorized by the Administrator pursuant to subsection [3] (c) and (d).
So the FAA is off the hook.
But not so fast!
It also says:
(4)Non-delegation.—
The plan shall not delegate any authority granted to the Administrator under this section to other Federal, State, local, territorial, or tribal agencies, or an airportsponsor, as defined in section 47102 of title 49,United States Code.
It actually says this twice.
The FAA has been very clear and was clear in the final rule that RID is for local and state LE to use. At no point are they making the argument that it will be the FAA out there receiving these broadcasts. It says they can’t delegate that authority but they have. They’ve delegated it to anyone and everyone! This is the smoking gun! I’m reluctant to go further than that. They are clearly breaking the law as written and clearly the intent of the law as well.
This is just as slam dunk as the aircraft registration thing.
Flightpro
Active Member
I replied with a lot of intelligent stuff, then I erased it because I don’t feel like participating in a think tank today.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
Brett, this is an important statute:
49 U.S. Code § 44810 - Airport safety and airspace hazard mitigation and enforcement
I am glad you pointed it out because it explains the FAA's statutory authority to investigate methods and propose regulations to safely integrate UAVs into the national airspace. And it does exempt certain FAA investigative activities (before regs are enacted) from the wiretap statute which is very important to know. It also makes me realize how much cat herding the FAA is required to do because of all the other federal agencies with legitimate interest in and their own right to regulate parts or portions of the subject matter.My gut instinct, however, is that the non-delegation argument will not fly if you will pardon the pun based on rules of statutory construction. What I mean is the way the paragraphs are broken into parts and subparts limits their application.
For example, if you look at (b) below as a single unit, then you can see that (4) Non-delegation may apply to the activities set forth in (b) only. I think what Congress is doing here in simple terms is telling the FAA you are required to research and write your own Plan. Do not delegate the Plan or outsource your own duties to others in your Plan.
(b)Plan.—
(1)In general.—
The Administrator shall develop a plan for the certification, permitting, authorizing, or allowing of the deployment of technologies or systems for the detection and mitigation of unmanned aircraft systems.
(2)Contents.—
The plan shall provide for the development of policies, procedures, or protocols that will allow appropriate officials of the Federal Aviation Administration to utilize such technologies or systems to take steps to detect and mitigate potential airspace safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft system operations.
(3)Aviation rulemaking committee.—
The Administrator shall charter an aviation rulemaking committee to make recommendations for such a plan and any standards that the Administrator determines may need to be developed with respect to such technologies or systems. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to an aviation rulemaking committee chartered under this paragraph.
(4)Non-delegation.—
The plan shall not delegate any authority granted to the Administrator under this section to other Federal, State, local, territorial, or tribal agencies, or an airport sponsor, as defined in section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.
Last edited:
Did you see that they have an almost the same clause as one of the main items in the over all stature as well though? It can be kinda easy to miss because you read it and think you are reading (b)(4) but it’s actually
49 U.S. Code § 44810 (i)
As in big (i)(i)Non-delegation.—
The Administrator shall not delegate any authority granted to the Administrator under this section to other Federal, State, local, territorial, or tribal agencies, or an airport sponsor, as defined in section 47102 of title 49, United States Code. The Administrator may partner with other Federal agencies under this section, subject to any restrictions contained in such agencies’ authority to operate counter unmanned aircraft systems.
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.
This is my non lawyer take so you know take it with plenty of salt but what do you think? Have I relieved you of that gut feeling about statutory construction?
Last edited:
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,717
- Reactions
- 2,334
I did see that and it gave me pause. But, I noticed they added a new sentence at the end of (i):
The Administrator may partner with other Federal agencies under this section, subject to any restrictions contained in such agencies’ authority to operate counter unmanned aircraft systems.
So, I think Congress is saying:
DO NOT DELEGATE TO ANYONE PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION*
*But feel free to partner with the other federal cats in the herd.
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
Waypoints and obstacle avoidance. Duh, learning.- Started by Shuttersky597
- Replies: 1
-
Mini 4 Lancelin Western Australia video composition- Started by Dronerock
- Replies: 0
-
-
-