DJI Aeroscope aproduct that provides people with your private information

[shane05]

I can go up in a private plane or helicopter and no need for a transponder to provide data on my position. Curious that this "feature" is being provided for the tiny DJI drones. More and more we are coming to resemble China and Saudi Arabia with big brother monitoring our emails and phone calls and purchases (and this has led to early morning raids by SWAT teams breaking down the front doors and throwing flash grenades inside the rooms and in one case into the crib of a baby badly injuring the child).

I am frankly amazed that people accept ever increasing loss of privacy and basic rights in this country. We have lost the right to free speech and peaceful assembly and due process of law and even the right to a trial before being killed by our government. How far does it have to go before people wake up?

I'm all about personal privacy and basic rights. The problem is that many people I see on these forums demand the right to do whatever they want even if it includes potentially negatively impacting other people and their rights. For example - flights over people, over busy highways or in airspace shared with manned aircraft. When it suits them, they flaunt that only the FAA has control of the airspace and localities have no right to regulate them as they are the equals of manned aircraft. Then, when the FAA tries to regulate them they demand that these are mere toys and everyone is being silly. The fact is, we are in new territory. Anyone with modest means can go into a store, buy a SUAS, and without any training or understanding of airspace regulations, physics (yes a two pound chunk of metal and plastic that lost a prop at 400 feet could potentially kill someone), or any other applicable topics, take their new toy out and fly it miles out, and do whatever they want in blissful ignorance of the annoyance and even dangers they could be presenting to others. Yes, most are bought as toys and yes it would be great if people in general had the sense to fly safely and with respect toward the rights of others but unfortunately many seem to lack this capacity. This is why I have no problem with authorities being able to spot a nuisance SUAS, and have the ability to find out who owns it. This is the kind of thing that can actually reduce future regulations because the threat of being held accountable can be very persuasive in keeping people from doing stupid stuff.

Right now, if you wanted to, you could fly your Phantom miles away from your home while sitting on your porch. You could fly it up to someone's window and hover. You could do this repeatedly and if you fly low enough and intentionally fly different routes home, you would be nearly impossible to track or stop - other than through the destruction of your Phantom. As it stands, there would be no way for authorities to figure out who you are or where you are. If this was my daughter's window, I'm sorry but in my opinion her right to privacy trumps yours. We are currently in the wild west with these things. The government should have been working on reasonable regulations years ago but instead they are playing catch-up. DJI is protecting their own interests because they do not want to see SUAS over-regulation any more than we do.

 

[F3honda4me]

I'm all about personal privacy and basic rights. The problem is that many people I see on these forums demand the right to do whatever they want even if it includes potentially negatively impacting other people and their rights. For example - flights over people, over busy highways or in airspace shared with manned aircraft. When it suits them, they flaunt that only the FAA has control of the airspace and localities have no right to regulate them as they are the equals of manned aircraft. Then, when the FAA tries to regulate them they demand that these are mere toys and everyone is being silly. The fact is, we are in new territory. Anyone with modest means can go into a store, buy a SUAS, and without any training or understanding of airspace regulations, physics (yes a two pound chunk of metal and plastic that lost a prop at 400 feet could potentially kill someone), or any other applicable topics, take their new toy out and fly it miles out, and do whatever they want in blissful ignorance of the annoyance and even dangers they could be presenting to others. Yes, most are bought as toys and yes it would be great if people in general had the sense to fly safely and with respect toward the rights of others but unfortunately many seem to lack this capacity. This is why I have no problem with authorities being able to spot a nuisance SUAS, and have the ability to find out who owns it. This is the kind of thing that can actually reduce future regulations because the threat of being held accountable can be very persuasive in keeping people from doing stupid stuff.

Right now, if you wanted to, you could fly your Phantom miles away from your home while sitting on your porch. You could fly it up to someone's window and hover. You could do this repeatedly and if you fly low enough and intentionally fly different routes home, you would be nearly impossible to track or stop - other than through the destruction of your Phantom. As it stands, there would be no way for authorities to figure out who you are or where you are. If this was my daughter's window, I'm sorry but in my opinion her right to privacy trumps yours. We are currently in the wild west with these things. The government should have been working on reasonable regulations years ago but instead they are playing catch-up. DJI is protecting their own interests because they do not want to see SUAS over-regulation any more than we do.

Sorry I disagree wholeheartedly. Fear monger with things like "what if this" and "what about that scenario" etc don't help anyone. In the end it comes down to personal responsibility. Instead of infringing upon everyone else's freedoms, hold those who do actual harm responsible for their actions.

 

[dangerd]

It's a little amusing how the same community that complains about uneducated neighbors and laypeople complaining about perceived invasions of privacy during their flights is now complaining that their privacy is being violated by giving authorities the ability to identify who is flying a UAS with basic telemetry info. I'm pretty sure these systems will be inaccessible to most individuals and if a neighbor did happen to gain the ability to get my email address from my SUAS (which has my phone number on it in case it ever gets lost) I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Giving authorities the ability to track down an irresponsible UAS pilot is actually a positive step for the community overall.

Yes I agree with this! Get over it, your aircraft is transmitting information all the time. If law enforcement can read it that's fine, don't break the law. Problem solved.

 

[F3honda4me]

Yes I agree with this! Get over it, your aircraft is transmitting information all the time. If law enforcement can read it that's fine, don't break the law. Problem solved.

Sorry but there’s a lot you’re not understanding about that statement. Everything the RC and craft transmit is not in clear text. It’s encrypted. So, they have to actively capture and decrypt it, or use this device that does that for them and more. “If you’re not breaking the law then who cares if they violate the fourth amendment” is what you’re essentially saying.

 

[Twinscrollgt35r]

We still talking about the government. When DJI was openly exposing all our informtion anyways.

 

[Twinscrollgt35r]

Btw for what its worth.

If the military has concerns over DJI products.
Its probably for good cause and we should all share those same concerns.

 

[shane05]

Sorry but there’s a lot you’re not understanding about that statement. Everything the RC and craft transmit is not in clear text. It’s encrypted. So, they have to actively capture and decrypt it, or use this device that does that for them and more. “If you’re not breaking the law then who cares if they violate the fourth amendment” is what you’re essentially saying.

I think you may be stretching the 4th amendment a little to fit your argument. Yes, the signal is encrypted but this isn't the same as reading your encrypted email. If the signal wasn't encrypted even you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the transferred information unless you're familiar with the coding. It is encrypted primarily to protect proprietary code from DJI competitors as well as to try to prevent people with the abilility from altering the code. DJI giving authorities limited access to the information contained in this traffic doesn't exactly equate to an illegal search and seizure.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the "if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about" mentality when you're talking about overreaching surveillance (like NSA collecting phone records, etc.) but in this case I don't think it's the same thing. You're only slightly more likely to get caught for breaking the law with this system because law enforcement can see who registered the UAS without physically tracking you down. If you're super concernerned you could always use a fake, free or proxy email account to register.

 

[Meta4]

If the military has concerns over DJI products.
Its probably for good cause and we should all share those same concerns.

First you would have to know what the military's concerns are but they didn't spell them out.
And what matters to the military probably has no relevance to recreational flyers.

 

[F3honda4me]

I think you may be stretching the 4th amendment a little to fit your argument. Yes, the signal is encrypted but this isn't the same as reading your encrypted email. If the signal wasn't encrypted even you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the transferred information unless you're familiar with the coding. It is encrypted primarily to protect proprietary code from DJI competitors as well as to try to prevent people with the abilility from altering the code. DJI giving authorities limited access to the information contained in this traffic doesn't exactly equate to an illegal search and seizure.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the "if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about" mentality when you're talking about overreaching surveillance (like NSA collecting phone records, etc.) but in this case I don't think it's the same thing. You're only slightly more likely to get caught for breaking the law with this system because law enforcement can see who registered the UAS without physically tracking you down. If you're super concernerned you could always use a fake, free or proxy email account to register.

Ok we are mostly on the same page I think.

 

[sar104]

First you would have to know what the military's concerns are but they didn't spell them out.
And what matters to the military probably has no relevance to recreational flyers.

Actually they were quite clear about the problem - they did not want telemetry and images from their operational use of UAVs being transmitted to foreign servers. What was kept at a classified level was the evidence on which they based those concerns.

 

[BigAl07]

Let's keep this on topic and not delve into the pit of politics and policies. This isn't the time/place for it.