Baker: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> wrote:

...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4lkyr2kdp8ukvx/DJI%20Remote%20Identification%20Wh... Section 2202 of the 2016 FAA Extension Act contemplates the development of remote identification technologies for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).... The first use of DJI's "identification code" will be for law enforcement to snoop. Snoop on *what* exactly? The location of your drone? The signal being sent by your drone?

Yes, abolutely, guaranteed. Flight path, start, finish, date, time, duration, full signals take and storage datastream. All straight into correlation file with cellphones in the area, self image of your dumbass flying it, etc.

...

The second use of DJI's identification code will be for resale to advertising companies. So that they can send ads ... where exactly? If I fly my drone over McDonald's I'll get ads from Burger King? This makes little sense.

Correct. It is McDonalds who will be displaying pro-mc'd and anti-competitor ads for your cameras on their rooftop billboards. Go ahead, upload that shit straight to youtube, they'll love you. And of course commercial collection mining and sale of whatever their rooftop antennae can pimp your flyby out for.

...

The third use of DJI's identification code will be for law enforcement targeting -- e.g., for miniature missiles and/or lasers to automatically destroy your drone. Why would they care to destroy *your* drone specifically, as opposed to "the (anonymous) drone that's flying over the White House"?

Perhaps not "your" drone, but all "logical not" invited. A free press is not free when only certain invitees get to see only certain perpared things.

...

The fourth use of DJI's identification code" will be for hackers to allow their drone to pretend to be your drone, so that you will be "swatted" when the hacker's drone dones something illegal. While SIM cards can be cloned, SIM card cloning has not represented a significant attack - and cloning a SIM card has significant monetary value, beyond any "hacking for the lulls" value.

Only so long as other attacks are cheaper / easier / less risky.

Sorry, these complaints make little sense to me. We consented

False, some group "voted" on some usually unnecessary force over others.

long ago to put license plates on cars because they are capable of doing significant damage

Not exclusively true, there are many other reasons.

and without plates identifying which car did the damage would be very difficult.

Not exactly true, the wreck and vin is in a broken pile right there. And your much loved govt minders now have cameras on your every intersection and residential street, and your much loved corporations have phonehome firmware in your every car.

Drones have similar potential to do similar damage.

Serializing them IFF squawk does nothing here. Nor will those things keep any but the most honest out. Build your own rigs, write your own flight firmware on RPi, load em up with your surveillance / damage of choice, and go have fun. Just like crypto munitions, all this tech is out of the bag long ago.

I just don't see a pressing need to have the ability to fly drones anonymously.

Don't suppose you would, nor did you note the list in the paper. Oh and let's just ignore 40 years of prior fully established art of anonymous radio control hobby flight, complete with 110 film cameras rigged to servos in the hull.

Do you have use cases that are significant enough to outweigh the potential abuses?

Free your mind.

As you noted later in the quote, Denmark is one country already mandating this technology. Freedom House ranks Denmark as one of the most free countries in the world. There are a bunch of other rankings out there, depending on what exactly you want to measure, but Denmark always scores high. Even that paragon of libertarian economic thought the Cato Institute ranks them as 5th. Apparently there are many who believe that "freedom" and "you have to identify your drones" are compatible....

Even if Denmark was free, identifying them wouldn't be compatible.

Just to piss you off? They can piss you off much more effectively already.

If you're worried about collection, tracking, privacy, and damage by persons and or entities, forget about the tool, criminalize the act, including those same acts by governments and corporations.

...

Whenever you hear a lawmaker use the phrase "balanced approach", you should vote against him/her and start filing lawsuits, because the "balance" being sought is typically that of destroying your rights as an individual -- including all of the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights.