Your drone will soon be narcing on you

[Chip]

Sure it's pretty simple really. . without naming clients . . . it's generally industrial property surveillance and security. I've written several SOPs (Standard Operational Procedures) . . one of which is described in my DRONE ISSUES section about how you can extend VLOS to FVLOS (Forward VLOS) using a Forward Observer in radio communications. This SOP is essential to stay legal in Canada and likely USA too.

Clients are large acreage manufacturing or storage facilities or construction sites. My thing is using small $1000 UAVs under 1kg (like Mavic) to do perimeter searches along fence lines or watercourses and the like where walking or taking a ATV would be difficult or time consuming.

Mavic sized drones have all the equipment and capability to do 80% of that kind of work at very low cost and no need for a $100K machine . . and they deploy a lot faster than the larger commercial ones. . .the new Matrice 210 is a bit bigger but less than $20K with Infrared sensors and/or 30x optical zoom can do all that and more at night.

Hope that helps. Watch for my Close Encounters video coming out soon. Should post next week. Flying my Mavic and Phantom4 Pro with normal aircraft . . .flying together in the same air space. An eye opener for both regular pilots and drone operators. It will be on www.inskyphoto.com.

Yes, that does help. Professional heli and drone pilot. You served your country and now you get to fly drones at 67!

I see nothing wrong with using a drone to patrol or monitor private property just as you describe. But AeroScope is a whole different kettle of fish because it allows real time monitoring of 70% of all drones and drone owners wherever they fly anywhere on the globe. All the data live streams to China and to any third party who pays or hacks to get it.

 

[Chip]

 

[Chip]

Do you see the difference between saying a device "cannot" do something and saying that it does not do something automatically?

 

[Chip]

It might seem obvious. I mention it only because I read article in DroneLife which says this:

Reassuringly for pilots concerned about their own privacy, DJI has stated that the Aeroscope system cannot intercept photos or videos from drones that it monitors. Neither can it actively take control of a drone or transmit personally identifiable information.

When automatically is dropped from the sentence, it changes the whole meaning. And what would purpose of system be if not to automatically identify the drone owner?

 

[Chip]

 

[Chip]

The express purpose of aeroscope is to ID drone owners.

 

[Chip]

Good video here that explains aeroscope very well. Aeroscope sees any DJI drone within 5 km range. Drone transmits location and flight data and owner registration number but no name. In order to obtain names, the "relevant authorities" must ask DJI for them in accordance with varying state laws not yet drafted or enacted.

"DJI wants to put a border between legality and privacy." Really? DJI is going to build a border wall to protect consumer privacy?

Addendum: Maybe not limited to 5km as advertised. According to reporter who visited Camarillo airport, she could see drone on screen 10 miles away. Of course, since the scope is portable, and can be carried in cars, planes, helicopters etc., the surveillance range is technically unlimited.

 

[Chip]

Border wall protecting privacy is built with Swiss Cheese!

Check out the other thread on Camarillo airport's use of aeroscope. The reporter claims she saw the drone operator's email address flash across the aeroscope screen:

After Aeroscope alerted Martino to a drone flying within the vicinity of the Camarillo Airport, I asked him what would happen next. A small aircraft icon hovered over the map on the CrystalSky display in front of me. Once the pilot stopped flying the drone, it dropped off the map. But I could still see, when I tapped through a list of recent drone activity, that the pilot had been flying an Inspire, one of DJI’s own, and the pilot’s personal email address was visible...so now what we can do is we can, essentially, send him a friendly email, introduce ourselves and the airport and hopefully engage,” Martino said. “[We say] the airport doesn’t approve or deny any FAA UAS operations, but there’s a proper method to getting approval to fly in restricted airspace.” But wait there is more...

For now, Nick Martino says he wants to get Aeroscope installed directly in his fleet of patrol cars. In fact, he’s also been talking to DJI about doing this, as well as installing it in department helicopters. He hopes there are more direct messaging features coming, something that would be more immediate than emailing a drone pilot.

 

[dewster]

Soon your car will provide live updates on your driving activity. You'll be taxed based on how many miles you drive. No need for speed cameras when your car will report when you go over the speed limit. Emailed tickets will be the new norm. Lol.

DJI is ahead of the game.

C'mon haters...

 

[Kalvik]

I'm thankful that I fly where it is impossible to monitor my activity!

 

[Freebird32]

Anyone know whether Aeroscope detects all DJI drones regardless of firmware version? It would prove valuable to officials especially those trying to control airspace around wildfire operations. Stupid drone pilots aren't helping the folks that stay within the rules and don't endanger others. Maybe need to catch a few to make examples..

 

[Chip]

Anyone know whether Aeroscope detects all DJI drones regardless of firmware version?

I thought the answer was no, not without future firmware update that would require special notice to consumer. But, the journalist who visited Camarillo airport says she saw the Aeroscope identify an Inspire from 10 miles away a few days ago! Anyone know when the Inspire firmware was last updated?

 

[Chip]

I would be curious to know who authorized Ventura county, CA and Nick Martino to obtain the email addresses of everyone flying a DJI drone within 10 miles of the Camarillo airport?

 

[Keule]

Anyone know when the Inspire firmware was last updated?

Inspire 1 - FW 01.11.01.50 / July 7, 2017
Inspire 2 - FW 01.01.200 / November 13, 2017

I assume, that with the latest firmware on the Inspire 1, a 'hidden feature' could be active, because DJI removed all previous versions from their website and you are officially unable to rollback to an older version.

I am not sure about the Inspire 2 firmware when that Aeroscope compatibility is active.

 

[Chip]

Check this out. The online article regarding the journalist's observation of Aeroscope at the Camarillo airport was just updated in last 48 hours.

Original Quote:
"But I could still see, when I tapped through a list of recent drone activity, that the pilot had been flying an Inspire, one of DJI’s own, and the pilot’s personal email address was visible."

Update:
"DJI says the production version of Aeroscope will not show pilots’ email addresses, and that an Aeroscope users will have to use a drone’s serial number or registration number to get in touch with the drone pilot."

"Editor’s note: This story was updated November 15, a day after its original publication, to include more information from DJI on how Aeroscope users will be able to contact drone pilots once the system spots their drones."

 

[Chip]

This is the article:
Tracking drones with DJI’s new Aeroscope technology

As far as "Aeroscope users will have to use a drone’s serial number or registration number to get in touch with the drone pilot,"

I wonder how they will do that?

Martino and his team at the Ventura County Department of Airports have been testing Aeroscope since October, when DJI contacted the department and asked if they wanted access to an early prototype.

No public notice, hearing or comment. Probably no written policies, rules or regulations let alone legislation in place.

Just give the airport manager an Aeroscope and let him mess with it.

 

[Chip]

Based on DJI’s presentation, how is this not an unlawful interception of electronic communication?

Now that we know Ventura county was intercepting email addresses 10 miles from the airport with no warrant or probable cause, its a very good question because California's Electronic Communications Privacy Act is one of the toughest in the nation.

 

[Chip]

629.84.
Any violation of this chapter is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

629.86.
Any person whose wire or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have the following remedies:
(a) Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use, the communications.
(b) Be entitled to recover, in that action, all of the following:
(1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) a day for each day of violation or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater.
(2) Punitive damages.
(3) Reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

 

[Keule]

I think, DJI implemented a new feature in the transmit data stream on the aircraft side.
By simply broadcasting the serial number, location, etc. in unencrypted form (plain text), it's not intercepting, it's listening to public available data.
Think of an transponder or ADS-B.

E-Mail address: how is this valuable piece of information being retrieved?
This is definitely something which is covered in Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Without a warrant an airport manager (Aeroscope operator) can/should not request this by it's own on looking up DJI's databases where the serial numbers of airframes and their related e-mail is stored.

 

[Chip]

I think, DJI implemented a new feature in the transmit data stream on the aircraft side.
By simply broadcasting the serial number, location, etc. in unencrypted form (plain text), it's not intercepting, it's listening to public available data.
Think of an transponder or ADS-B.

E-Mail address: how is this valuable piece of information being retrieved?
This is definitely something which is covered in Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Without a warrant an airport manager (Aeroscope operator) can/should not request this by it's own on looking up DJI's databases where the serial numbers of airframes and their related e-mail is stored.

Do you know how it was "implemented?" Was a firmware update required to activate? Given what you said about Inspire updates, are you thinking that no update was required? Our mavics are broadcasting our email addresses and locations now?

Here is the latest instructional video from Mr. Martino and Drone U. I guess Mr. Martino takes the Aeroscope on the road! Here he is from rooftop in Denver, CO.