Slashdot Mirror
DJI Proposes New Electronic 'License Plate' For Drones (digitaltrends.com)
linuxwrangler writes: Chinese drone maker DJI proposed that drones be required to transmit a unique identifier to assist law enforcement to identify operators where necessary. Anyone with an appropriate receiver could receive the ID number, but the database linking the ID with the registered owner would only be available to government agencies. DJI likens this to a license plate on a car and offers it as a solution to a congressional mandate that the FAA develop methods to remotely identify drone operators. "The best solution is usually the simplest," DJI wrote in a white paper on the topic, which can be downloaded at this link. "The focus of the primary method for remote identification should be on a way for anyone concerned about a drone flight in close proximity to report an identifier number to the authorities, who would then have the tools to investigate the complaint without infringing on operator privacy. [...] No other technology is subject to mandatory industry-wide tracking and recording of its use, and we strongly urge against making UAS the first such technology. The case for such an Orwellian model has not been made. A networked system provides more information than needed, to people who don't require it, and exposes confidential business information in the process."
Uh, no. If a drone is close enough to know who I am, I should be able to know who the operator is, without a layer of bureaucracy in the way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Perhaps embed serialized RFID pellets in all the major components like they do (inbound hyperbole warning!) everything else these days. Probably good for the manufacturers' logistics as well.
HAM operators are already searchable, if you search for a callsign on ARRL.ORG you can usually find a person's home address. (ex: W0ORE)
I see no reason not to do the same for RC hobbyists. Obviously if you visit a drone operator's home address with the intent to harass or threaten them that is already a crime, and they can request a restraining order or defend themselves if it gets serious.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
consider what happens when the redcoats get hold of that drone archive. They'll burn the white house down like they already did once.
DJI sells consumer level drones, ready to go out of the box.
You can build the same unit out in your garage for half the cost.
Ever tried to licence a home-made car? Makes you wanna never screw around with it again.
If they're aircraft, and I can't see a way to justify that they aren't, then the registration must be searchable in accordance wi the Chicago Convention (the ICAO treaty) as amended. I see no reason not to require them to transmit registration information, as flying is no more a right than driving.
I can see someone using a found/stolen plate or drone that just happens to have a plate already and crashing it into something either on accident or on purpose. How would you prove that the person that flew it was the person that owned the digital plate? These drones get lost pretty often so there will be plates out there that are lost. Will there be a way to report the plate lost? If so then someone could just report all of their plates as lost and then not be responsible for them? I see all kinds of issues with this solution.
"the database linking the ID with the registered owner would only be available to government agencies." Anyone buying that load of Bull?
Than the already required tail numbers?
But the cat is out of the bag and the horse long bolted through the open gate. How can you force or enforce a retrofit of the license chip or whatever to the millions and millions of drones already out there? What about rogue manufacturers or people who would remove the licensing (or worse, spoof an innocent party's license) for nefarious purposes. This would have to apply globally to even begin being effective.
Me, all I want is a near-silent net-launcher to capture rogue drones...
Basically, drones are licensed and regulated.
I have never understood, why owning a dog requires license and documents are required.
However no license/permits are required to have a child.
Where is the logic?
on my DJI Mavic its right there, with even a fancy 2D barcode for the WiFi.
Now the fact that using my phone to scan that code is tough from 12" away in good lighting.... and the black font on grey background being a size 8pt is just details
but seriously, the WiFi SSID if turned on effectively is a unique ID already, unless you change it.
DJI says: " No other technology is subject to mandatory industry-wide tracking and recording of its use, and we strongly urge against making UAS the first such technology."
This is complete and utter bullshit by DJI. Every manned aircraft operated in the United States (except for a very small number of antique airplanes made around 1946 and earlier, balloons, and some gliders) are currently required to broadcast a signal used to track it. It's called a transponder. Older transponders only report altitude and a unique number assigned by air traffic control, or set to 1200 if not a controlled flight, or 1202 if an uncontrolled glider flight. Newer transponders that are required at the end of 2019 will broadcast WAAS GPS data that adds aircraft registration data, accurate position, direction, and velocity. These broadcasts are tracked and located by radar systems. Check out flightradar24 and flightaware and you can see how flights with even simple transponders are accurately tracked.
Humans fly in airplanes that operate in a complex engineered air space system - even if those aircraft are in uncontrolled space - it's all part of an engineered system. If you want to operate a drone in _any_ US airspace, then you _must_ act as part of that engineered airspace system. Period. Or face the wrath of the law and the estates of those who you kill with your non-compliant drones.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Another area with registration ensures that the information about a specific gun is available to law enforcement following proper procedures, but the database can never be leaked in masse, causing the issues that would entail.
Each manufacturer (seperately) has a list of which distributor they sold it to. Each distributor has a list of which wholesaler they sold it to. Each wholesaler has a list of which retailer they sold it to. Each retailer has a list of the end-purchaser they sold it to.
A law enforcement officer following procedure who finds a gun (or toy RC helicopter?) can get the owner's name with five phone calls. So if you want to know about a specific gun (or suspicious toy?), it takes 10-15 minutes to get the information. You can't get a list of *everybody* who bought guns, though (not without going to each individual retailer).
No more consumer drones unless it can only be operated within line of sight, no more than 50 feet, and can't fly for more than 10 minutes at a time. Basically: A childs' toy. You want more than that? You have to have a legitimate business reason to have one, and you have to pay license fees, insurance, and obtain permits to operate it anywhere near public places. Goddamned things are a nuisance and should never have been allowed in the first place.
Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows.
Driving down the street, or sitting at a bus stop, and seeing people walk by in public isn't illegal. There's no invasion of privacy because there is no privacy out in public. Flying 200 feet overhead and seeing people walking down the sidewalk isn't illegal any more than driving down the street and seeing people. Sitting behind a bush also is not illegal in the United States. If you want privacy, go inside.
If you're extra paranoid, you might think about a "drone" hovering outside your window. *That* would be illegal, and very loud. I have a small "drone" (toy quadcopter) and I can easily hear it from 200-300 yards away.
Genie's out of the bottle, and neither the FAA nor DJIs weak-sauce attempt to corner the market by suggesting the mandating of a technology they just happen to have ready in their back pocket (probably protected with some bogus patents) is going to stop it. Yeah, they can hit you with a jillion-dollar fine for operating your drone with an open-source controller, but that requires they catch you first, and the FAA lacks the manpower.
"Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows"
It's that, and more (and I deliberately included other, similar concepts because the legal expression of the concept varies). What's illegal is circumventing barriers which create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like climbing a tree to see over a fence, or flying a drone over someone's residence.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
And how are you going to enforce this registration requirement? Jump up and grab an unregistered drone with collision avoidance software that is 100 ft in the air, and traveling at 30 mph? if you catch it, are you going to throw the drone in jail? You going to throw a spider-tracer on the drone, and follow it?
Good luck with that. That law should be as simple to enforce as anti-marijuana regulations. I bet you have this whole problem solved by Friday.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Probably not so good at identifying a specific drone.
There would always be a defense of "yes I was flying in the area, no that's not my drone the complainant saw"
Before anyone says "but commercial aircraft have RF transponders" - Commercial aircraft also have big numbers printed on them too, so a picture can positively identify them. They're scanned by radar and their transponders send out GPS coordinates too. Their signals are constantly monitored and their flight paths recorded.
The laws are written down. You can read them, rather than making something up out of thin air and deciding to believe it. I've copy-pastes it for you below. You'll notice flying is NOT illegal - flying over someone's house is very much NOT covered by the "peeping tom" section because that would make air travel nearly impossible.
As I recall 46 or 47 states use this wording:
(11)âfor a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A)âenters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
(B)âwhile on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; âor
(C)âwhile on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
For a civil tort (suing someone for money) it pretty much comes down to a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Generally, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" outdoors. (With rare exceptions). Even if there is a fence, you know planes fly overhead, small planes and helicopters fly low. Therefore you can't reasonably expect that a small plane won't fly over and get an overhead view of your yard. (Quite to the chagrin of many a marijuana grower).
Yep people are naive. Anyone with an aircraft could simply open the window and stick a DSLR out and zoom right in on your backyard. Unlike a "drone" you're going to have no idea it's happening because the person is 2+ miles away and using a zoom lens.
Sure, the barrier to entry has gone down, and unfortunately some really irresponsible people are able to buy something at Walmart and use it to mess with others. But generally speaking, the pandoras box was opened a long time ago. We live in three dimensions and people 'ought to make peace with that new reality.
Just like preview on /., you've obviously never heard of common law, have you?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What does it matter... just about every model toy "drone" law on the books in unenforceable, certainly nobody is going to do anything unless you harm someone or break something, or someone with enough money to sue you gets pissed off.
So, fly with common sense, and don't piss people off. 'Murca...
That in the Uniteed States this part "Anyone with an appropriate receiver could receive the ID number, but the database linking the ID with the registered owner would only be available to government agencies." concerns me most. Are they leaving a backdoor in the product and giving the government the key, or will they need a warrant to get those records in the U.S.?
12 gauge with bird shot, or for less drama a garden hose.
Wholesalers, and anyone else the business of selling guns, must record every transaction and run a background check. That's federal law.
I work with the experts that go to bat both with/for the FAA on many key technologies. I wrote to the FAA about this exact solution over two years ago, before the problem was even that prominent in the news.
Crickets....
No reply.
No thanks for the idea, but...
What, not even a demeaning rejection form letter?
I take it that some random Chinese manufacturer has more clout than a UARC research scientist?
Ok, this is the New Government we are talking about here. Maybe I should have just tweeted the idea to get noticed.