- Join
- Aug 16, 2019
- Messages
- 898
I didn't expect to see anything official regarding the FAA's remote ID, but periodically I check the net to see if there are any other discussions ongoing and I ran across this one:
UAS Service Suppliers Discuss the 53,000 Comments on the FAA's Remote ID Proposal
It's obvious the UASS entities are chomping at the bit to get this revenue stream rolling ASAP even in the face of privacy and security concerns. Law enforcement agencies are concerned that, as written, their opsec may be compromised and they even mention safety concerns for their operators. Missing in all this is any reference to "civilian" safety and security, much less our right to access.
You gotta love the guy from AirMap suggesting that "operators may have to accept that operating in the public airspace means forfeiting some degree of privacy". He attempts to rationalize it by saying, "What's the tradeoff when we access public resources? We share data when we access public highways, and manned aircraft ADS-B feeds are generally publicly available," he continued, "I think it's all about whether one has an expectation of privacy while flying." Share data when we access public highways? That data we share is in the form of a tag number that is registered with a DMV and accessible only to the proper authorities. This guy apparently thinks anyone being able to know the location of a UAS operator is the price one pays for using the airspace. The idea that ADS-B feeds are "generally publicly available" is irrelavent because you do not know who is piloting the aircraft nor can you confront that pilot during the operation of the aircraft. To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!".
No one should be surprised that this attitude prevails among those who feel that government and business are the only ones with a justifiable need for UAS access to the airspace, but it chaps my hide to see them say it so unabashedly.
UAS Service Suppliers Discuss the 53,000 Comments on the FAA's Remote ID Proposal
It's obvious the UASS entities are chomping at the bit to get this revenue stream rolling ASAP even in the face of privacy and security concerns. Law enforcement agencies are concerned that, as written, their opsec may be compromised and they even mention safety concerns for their operators. Missing in all this is any reference to "civilian" safety and security, much less our right to access.
You gotta love the guy from AirMap suggesting that "operators may have to accept that operating in the public airspace means forfeiting some degree of privacy". He attempts to rationalize it by saying, "What's the tradeoff when we access public resources? We share data when we access public highways, and manned aircraft ADS-B feeds are generally publicly available," he continued, "I think it's all about whether one has an expectation of privacy while flying." Share data when we access public highways? That data we share is in the form of a tag number that is registered with a DMV and accessible only to the proper authorities. This guy apparently thinks anyone being able to know the location of a UAS operator is the price one pays for using the airspace. The idea that ADS-B feeds are "generally publicly available" is irrelavent because you do not know who is piloting the aircraft nor can you confront that pilot during the operation of the aircraft. To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!".
No one should be surprised that this attitude prevails among those who feel that government and business are the only ones with a justifiable need for UAS access to the airspace, but it chaps my hide to see them say it so unabashedly.
