[HN Gopher] DJI drone tracking data exposed in US
___________________________________________________________________
DJI drone tracking data exposed in US
Author : bmcn2020
Score : 53 points
Date : 2022-10-13 16:01 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cybernews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cybernews.com)
| bri3d wrote:
| This is about to get much more prevalent and less DJI specific.
|
| Right now, AeroScope is pretty much the only widely used tracking
| product on the market, because it can decode the proprietary
| identifiers contained in several generations of specialized DJI
| radio link (the hardware is hilarious - it's basically a gigantic
| mainboard with every generation of DJI chipset stuffed onto it).
|
| However, with the new FAA requirement for standardized remote ID,
| anyone will be able to track drones which transmit using ASTM
| F3411 approved ID methods, using even a normal Android phone and
| software like https://github.com/opendroneid/receiver-android .
|
| So, it's only a matter of time before an "ADS-B aggregator site
| but for drones" appears, at which point this type of tracking
| data will be always on and always available. I suspect that
| within a few years, it won't be able to fly a compliant drone in
| the US without having your flight appear online.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >I suspect that within a few years, it won't be able to fly a
| compliant drone in the US without having your flight appear
| online.
|
| I don't think I have a problem with this. However, the
| transmitter of that ID can't be that powerful as it's just on a
| drone. There would need to be a global network of receivers to
| make this a viable thing to constantly be reading every single
| drone everywhere all the time.
|
| Instead, I just see it as some form of LEO seeing a drone in a
| restricted space, pulling out their device to get an ID from
| said drone, enter some form of ticket into some sort of
| database, drone owner receives warning/fine/etc. I'm okay with
| all of that. Your drone is already recording GPS info, so if
| you feel the LEO was wrong, you can submit your GPS info with
| the time of the "offense" to support your claim it wasn't an
| illegal flight. What could possibly go wrong? /s
| haswell wrote:
| > _There would need to be a global network of receivers to
| make this a viable thing to constantly be reading every
| single drone everywhere all the time._
|
| This is how map views like [0] function. Lots of enthusiasts
| collect and share ADSB data to aggregator sites that then
| publish these global views. I don't know much about the
| Remote ID tech, but it's not hard to imagine existing global
| flight tracking networks expanding to include drone traffic.
|
| Most of these ADSB receivers are raspberry Pis and similar
| running SDR software, which would make such a thing seem
| highly plausible.
|
| - [0] https://globe.adsbexchange.com/
| djbebs wrote:
| If you want to put your own flights online for everyone to
| see that's your business.
|
| Why do you think you should be the one to make that decision
| for someone else?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm not making any decisions for someone else. I'm just
| stating that I'm not seeing anything wrong with the idea of
| making drones transmit ID just like any other craft in the
| air is expected to do.
|
| Why do you think that what you do in public air space is
| private?
| haswell wrote:
| I don't think most of this mattered before drones became
| low effort, long distance, extremely high resolution
| photographic surveillance machines that are capable of
| flying into real flight paths.
|
| More and more people are finding these things hovering
| outside their windows in urban environments, and as they
| become easier and easier to fly, people are flying into
| flight paths, dangerously over people and roadways, and in
| locations that should be obvious to avoid.
|
| Chicago enacted strict drone ordinances to combat this
| after an explosion of "nosy drone sightings", and this
| wasn't pearl clutching, it was downright creepy behavior by
| the operators.
|
| More recently, the FAA had to issue a warning about drone
| operators flying into the flight paths of planes on
| approach to O'Hare. People take their drone out to the lake
| and think everything's fine, but a lot of the lake is
| directly in those flight paths.
|
| Especially in city centers, a drone is participating in a
| large and complex airspace, and it's more about ensuring
| drones continue to operate safely in that environment and
| less about making that decision for someone else.
|
| If you fly a plane, you're transmitting ADS-B, because that
| is what is required to fly a plane safely. The same
| requirement is looking more and more necessary for drones.
| bri3d wrote:
| What's bizarre about Remote ID by the "airspace safety"
| line of thought is that there's no real plan for aircraft
| or even ATC to have Remote ID-in receivers, and some of
| the approved MOC are _very_ short range and probably
| wouldn't even reach from the lake to the O'Hare tower in
| your example.
|
| With the current MOC methods, it's really just a way for
| law enforcement to seek out stuff that's flying in the
| extremely immediate (like <1km) vicinity.
| lsaferite wrote:
| > If you fly a plane, you're transmitting ADS-B, because
| that is what is required to fly a plane safely. The same
| requirement is looking more and more necessary for
| drones.
|
| My issue with RemoteID is that it's ALSO transmitting the
| _current_ physical location of the pilot. The pilot of a
| potentially very expensive piece of gear. That seems like
| a great way to get robbed. The rest of RemoteID is fine.
| haswell wrote:
| That is a fair criticism. I did not realize it was
| transmitting pilot location as well.
|
| Seems like a bad implementation of a necessary thing.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| > I suspect that within a few years, it won't be able to fly a
| compliant drone in the US without having your flight appear
| online.
|
| Unless it weighs less than 250g - like many small FPV race
| drones, in which case it's exempt. Or you buy a motion
| control/IMU, radio, and other parts from Hobbyking [1] and
| build it yourself.
|
| Between MEMS IMUs, open-source flight control software, BLDC
| motor and lipo power density, flying vehicles that couldn't be
| built at any price 30 years ago can be assembled by anyone in
| their garage.
|
| I haven't built anything personally in the last couple years,
| but I'm concerned that my old fixed-wing builds will become
| illegal to fly, and that the promised $20 bolt-on transponders
| haven't materialized.
|
| [1]: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aircraft/drones/flight-
| controlle...
| bri3d wrote:
| Ardupilot have an add-on transponder solution that should be
| compliant in some configurations, although the whole thing is
| a complete mess in terms of certification and the MOC
| documentation as there's a lot of uncertainty around the
| tamper-proofing requirements. You should be able to get your
| old fixed-wing builds updated.
|
| https://dronescout.co/dronebeacon-mavlink-remote-id-
| transpon...
|
| https://ardupilot.org/dev/docs/opendroneid.html#opendroneid
|
| I'm waiting to care until the deadline actually approaches.
| haswell wrote:
| > _Unless it weighs less than 250g - like many small FPV race
| drones, in which case it 's exempt._
|
| A couple of notes/thoughts on this:
|
| Commercial drones like the new DJI Mini 3 pro still include
| Remote ID despite being sub-250g, most likely because it's
| possible to install a bigger battery and make it heavier. But
| I also suspect that bigger vendors will default to including
| this hardware because of the trend towards more and more
| tracking, i.e. the rule could change at any time.
|
| The other thing to note is that any commercial use of drones
| under Part 107 must comply with the Remote ID rule regardless
| of the drone's weight.
|
| This is further incentive for commercial drones to include it
| by default, as any drone that doesn't is automatically not
| usable in a commercial setting.
|
| Commercial use would include drone shots intended for sexier
| instagram posts, if those IG posts are monetized.
| Calamitous wrote:
| I've been thinking about getting into drones as a hobby (and a
| way to help manage parts of my sprawling property), but all these
| privacy stories lately have me spooked.
|
| Is there a "safe" vendor of drones, or has this turned into
| another "all smart TVs are wiretaps by default" situation that
| we're expected to just accept?
| altarius wrote:
| Plus, if you want to fly it "really" legally you often can't.
| In CA, according to my own research:
|
| - you can't fly over private property,
|
| - pretty much _ALL_ parks&rec departments and counties in the
| Bay Area prohibit flying in their public parks,
|
| - flying over e.g. public parking lots and the likes is
| probably a gray area as there's potentially people around,
|
| - airspace at least around here is often regulated anyway, many
| airports, hospitals with heli pads (not 100% sure about
| legality of flying within their "zone") and national/state
| parks that are also no-fly.
|
| I tend to fly in smaller parks and just risk the $500 (?) fine
| and getting the drone confiscated :( It will just get better
| once this can happen retroactively :/
|
| But this is mostly why I got a DJI Mini, it's pretty quiet and
| doesn't draw a lot of attention.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > you can't fly over private property
|
| Yes, you can. The FAA regulates airspace; the state has no
| jurisdiction.
|
| > pretty much _ALL_ parks&rec departments and counties in the
| Bay Area prohibit flying in their public parks,
|
| They can restrict taking off, landing, and "operating from".
|
| > airspace at least around here is often regulated anyway,
| many airports, hospitals with heli pads (not 100% sure about
| legality of flying within their "zone") and national/state
| parks that are also no-fly.
|
| In most cases it's as easy as a LAANC request, made through a
| mobile app and approved instantly.
|
| It's worse in some places than others but I had no problem
| flying in Santa Cruz a few months ago. San Diego is a
| nightmare, between military bases and the civilian airport
| there.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| It is illegal to sell a drone with privacy, all drones must be
| tracked by law and there are complex laws that require tracking
| where you fly them and preventing you from flying them in
| certain locations.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| How much "airspace" over your own property do you "own"?
| teeray wrote:
| The FAA has been pretty adamant that the answer is "none",
| and it has been held up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-13 23:02 UTC)