
The FAA Proposal for Drone Remote ID - EGreg
https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/
======
jopolous
I think what some people don't understand here is how working with the FAA is
fundamentally different than the DMV.

The DMV has to keep as many people driving as reasonably possible, since in
the US it's practically impossible to live life normally without a car
(excepting major cities)

Flying, on the other hand, is viewed as a privilege by the FAA. You do not
have a right to fly anything. And the FAA will do everything it can to make
sure flying is safe, even if it means barring the majority of the population
from ever qualifying to fly.

I don't think they will treat drones any differently.

So to everyone who is shocked at how hard the FAA is being about drones,
welcome to flying. This is par for the course for us pilots.

~~~
pravda
>You do not have a right to fly anything.

AFAIK, you don't need a license or formal training, or anything, to fly an
ultralight.

Well, except for the ultralight.

~~~
jopolous
Actually, that's a very good point. There are some important restrictions
regarding airspace but there are legal ways to get up in the air by yourself
without any training

Good call out there

~~~
copperx
The willingness to risk your own life in an ultralight is enough to satisfy
the FAA that you followed some minimal due diligence; however, you're not
risking anything by flying a drone except a few dollars.

------
TrueDuality

      Standard remote identification UAS would be required to broadcast identification and
      location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit
      that same information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection. Limited
      remote identification UAS would be required to transmit information through the
      internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would
      be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station.
    

This requires all drones to be internet connected. That's a crazy requirement,
and a crazy extra risk.

~~~
cesarb
From what I understood skimming the full PDF linked by another comment, it's
the base station which is required to be Internet connected, not the drone.
Still a crazy requirement, but less crazy.

~~~
TrueDuality
That is the opposite of my understanding based on two parts. As part of the
protocol the UAS needs to be able to transmit:

> An indication of the emergency status of the UAS, which could include lost-
> link or downed aircraft.

I suppose this could possibly be done from the base station as well but
manufacturers are going to have to get this certified for operation and I bet
this will be sticking point.

The other one is this one:

> UAS would be required to broadcast identification and location information
> directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same
> information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection.

While I suppose it could be read that the "directly from unmanned aircraft"
might not apply to the internet connection portion I'm willing to bet that is
the intent.

~~~
CrazyStat
p.111 of the regulations gives an example specifically of a UAS that uses the
internet connection of a paired smartphone:

> Charlie’s UAS is designed to pair with his smartphone to transmit the remote
> identification message elements through an internet connection to a USS.
> Because Charlie’s UAS cannot broadcast [i.e. radio] remote identification
> message elements, it does not function unless his smartphone is connected to
> the internet and transmitting through that internet connection to Bravo USS.

~~~
TrueDuality
That doesn't seem remotely practical. Even the tiniest hobby drones can easily
and safely get 150ft away along the ground and are allowed to go up to 400ft.

Have you tried connecting to a phone's hotspot or bluetooth line of sight from
50ft away? 75ft? That's like half a second of flight time for drone then it's
supposed to just "stop operating". Sounds incredibly dangerous and ineffective
to me.

If its from the base station that would probably make more sense but that
would require replacing controllers which are the most costly portion of
amateur setups (besides FPV setups).

~~~
ethbro
The proposed document contains answers to most of your questions. I'd
recommend using search to jump around to the areas you seem interested in.

 _> For both standard and limited remote identification UAS, at this time the
FAA has not proposed any requirements regarding how the UAS connects to the
internet to transmit the message elements or whether that transmission is from
the control station or the unmanned aircraft. The FAA understands, however,
that there are concerns about the impact that connecting to the internet
directly from the unmanned aircraft (as opposed to the control station) could
have on networks that use radio frequency spectrum, including interference,
network stability, or other effects._

If you want to fly 400 ft away, it doesn't seem too onerous to require a
communication setup that's capable of staying in contact with your drone.

------
awalton
Yikes. Was kinda hoping to see it just be an NFC sticker you have to slap on
your drone after registration, but this reads like they want an active radio
and per-flight generated IDs, the devices need internet connections and all
kinds of business that precludes entire categories of lightweight UASes. This
is definitely going to be stifling to the market if it's enforced in the
slightest.

It also rules out using ADS-B on drone aircraft entirely, which is a bit
perplexing.

~~~
sixdimensional
Did you hear that they are having privacy concerns for the 24 bit ICAO
aircraft address which is broadcast by ADS-B transponders now?? There are a
bunch of companies petitioning for a temporary anonymous private address
process that only the FAA would be able to track.

Why did they bother to invent a publicly broadcast address if it wasn't
intended to be used that way!?

~~~
Maxious
> The Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) program is now available.

[https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/](https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/privacy/)

~~~
blantonl
This will be easily defeatable with a crowd-sourced database.

It is not even close to easy to be able to change an ADS-B out ICAO address in
avionics right now, so periodically changing these addresses won't happen in
production.

When will people realize that security by obscurity doesn't work?

------
TrueDuality
There is a lot of content in here that seem like its intentionally created for
getting money out of people and the government.

* Drones will require an internet connection (might be able to get away with a connection via a cell phone or something, but that'll likely prove unreliable)

* Additional radio hardware will be required in some cases as well

* The FCC will subcontract out to a specific company receiving all of the drone reports

* No discussion of protocol, so will largely be designed and specified by the internet contractor... Which history has proven will be a heavy protocol... So larger CPU requirements to comply...

~~~
cjbprime
The fact that complying with a regulation will involve spending money does not
imply that a purpose of the regulation is to extract money.

It costs money to make buildings fire-safe, too.

------
mdip
I'm curious about how dramatically this will affect the price of drones. I did
a skim-read of the PDF but couldn't find specifics about what size of
craft/properties of the craft this would apply to.

Would it apply to the little hand-held $14 thing that was used for exactly one
hour on Christmas before it was destroyed?

Even outside of the "disposable/toy" market -- Amazon has a number of
$100-$200 drones that are quite capable, with video/GPS and a lot of the
features that would have been found only on $1000 drones a couple of years
ago. Adding regulation[0] greatly affects hobbiest builders. I'm going to
avoid tinkering around with things that could result in me having to explain
myself to a judge. And it affects the target market for these $100/$200
drones. Do I want to go through the trouble of ensuring I'm not violating a
hundred-page rule just "for my own entertainment"?

I'm _not_ saying the regulation isn't needed. Frankly, I haven't spent time
understanding the problem well enough to make that determination. I'm just
wondering how well this balances preventing a drone-related catastrophe
against the harm it will cause to the overall sector.

[0] Especially if it's the sort that are required to be complied with in order
to be offered for sale

~~~
eblanshey
The proposal states that this applies to every UAV over half a pound, except
amateur built drones (which must be flown within line of sight.)

~~~
mdip
Honestly, that covers _my entire use case_ , today. I purchased a drone last
year with the desire to toss open-source auto-pilot firmware on it, but I've
always operated it within line-of-sight... at least, I've always _intended_ to
operate it within line-of-sight[0]. :P

[0] I failed to properly calibrate the drone on its third flight, where it
took of at full power, up and to the left. It continued to try to "correct
itself", which resulted it in flying in an arc, landing upside down on the
roof of a house 5 doors down. It's not fun introducing yourself to the
neighbors by asking if you can use the ladder you carried down the block to
retrieve the drone that nearly lodged itself in their chimney. Or maybe it is
... in my case, he was a drone hobbyist with similar piloting skills as
myself, so he was _very_ understanding and ended up giving me a battery he had
that he found out wasn't compatible with his.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I’m always surprised how pleasant it is to talk to my neighbors that I
normally never speak to.

------
robomartin
All legislation tends to be reactive rather than proactive. The drone
industry, in my opinion, has been rather irresponsible about educating their
customers. As a result you have people flying drones in places, at times and
altitudes they should not.

A few years ago, where I live, we had a rash of new drone owners doing stupid
crap like flying over homes, roads, highways, parks and supermarket parking
lots, to name a few. This culminated with the inevitable. Someone got hurt,
badly, when a drone fell out of the sky. The drone owner/operator got
arrested. They ended-up in jail and lost their home in the lawsuit that
followed. Pretty f-ing stupid behavior if you ask me.

As someone who has been designing, building and flying all kinds of remote
controlled aircraft for somewhere around 35 years, I have been looking at what
the consumer side of the drone industry has been doing with horror. I have
crashed so many aircraft and helicopters I can't even list them. I am not
talking about cheap toys either. My highest cost crash was $6,000 in one day.

The point is these things are toys made with toy-grade electronics. They are
nowhere near reliable enough to dare fly over structures, people or roads
unless the pilot is willing to face the consequences of killing one or more
people and possibly burning down an entire neighborhood. Having done extensive
work in aerospace I know full-well what proper fault-tolerant design looks
like --cause I have many fault-tolerant designs under my belt. These things
are not even close to being safe enough to fly over a crowd of kids at the
park or above a neighborhood. And yet it happens all the time.

The industry has had an opportunity to address these issues, either
technologically, through education or both. And they have note. Therefore,
they are slowly being constrained through precisely the legislation they
deserve to have to face.

One of the things I said years ago as drones started to become popular and
people started to do stupid things with them was that "these people are going
to ruin the model aircraft hobby for everyone". I am sad to say I was right.
They are doing precisely that and more.

Not sure if there are any solutions at this point other than the kind of
legislation responsible drone owners do not need and do not want.

Oddly enough this is precisely the same situation we have in the US with the
firearm issue. Responsible firearm owners don't need legislation to be, well,
responsible law-abiding citizens who harm nobody. Those who are in a range
between careless and demented are the one's who ruin it for everyone else.
This is now happening to drones. Same thing. Different hardware.

~~~
ceejayoz
> They are nowhere near reliable enough to dare fly over structures, people or
> roads unless the pilot is willing to face the consequences of killing one or
> more people and possibly burning down an entire neighborhood.

If your entire neighborhood can be burned down by one consumer-level drone,
you've got bigger issues.

Kids hit baseballs near crowds, with similar kinetic potential and the
occasional injury and even death. We manage to survive as a society without
strict regulations on baseball games.

~~~
robomartin
You might lack context in order to understand the very real dangers posed by
toy drones.

First, LiPo battery packs, when damaged, become the source of unbelievably
energetic fires.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3r2erRrfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3r2erRrfw)

...and it can happen this quickly in a flying situation:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjrTNkOjgt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjrTNkOjgt8)

Here's a convenient YouTube search with more LiPo fires:

[https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lipo+battery+fi...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lipo+battery+fire)

Second, we are in Southern California, where massive brush fires have taken
out entire neighborhoods. This is particularly dangerous during Santa Ana wind
conditions, where we can have sustained 30 to 60 mph winds.

If a drone crashes into fuel (brush, a home, etc.) and the LiPo is damaged or
shorted you have a very high potential for a large fire. Add wind and more
fuel to that and you can easily take out a chunk of a neighborhood if not the
entire area.

For context, we had a small fire two blocks away just a few months ago. The
hill on the side of the road lit for some reason. It was very windy. Before
you knew it three homes --not adjoining-- had gone up, several fences burned
and probably about a quarter of a mile of grass/shrubs/fuel burned-up. This
was with two Super Scooper aircraft and three or four water-dropping
helicopters dumping water and retardant at a furious pace (we live by a lake,
so round trips are quick).

And then there are real cases of real homes, garages and businesses going up
in flames due to drone or LiPo batteries catching fire:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzJ5Wv0cKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzJ5Wv0cKM)

In other words, no, I am not over-stating the danger of people flying drones
around hills, brush, homes or roads. It doesn't matter how small they are,
LiPo's are very energetic and can start nasty fires.

This is part of the problem I alluded to in my earlier note. People simply
aren't educated about this stuff and actually think it is safe to fly these
things anywhere and might even laugh at those proposing this is very
dangerous. The industry has failed to educated people, which is why it will
get pounded with legislation.

BTW, all of my LiPo batteries are stored in fireproof bags inside a fireproof
metal container. My garage might fill with smoke but I am not going to lose my
home over a bunch of batteries for my model aircraft.

~~~
ceejayoz
As I said, "you've got bigger issues". California's a tinderbox, and is
regularly getting ignited by _non-drone_ ignition sources.

~~~
robomartin
This is a reality everywhere. California has bigger issues, yes, but that's
not to say that a drone crashing into a neighborhood anywhere in the US could
not launch a catastrophic event.

BTW, even if the issue was narrowed down to burning down a single home it
would be serious enough not to have these things flying above neighborhoods.
Let's be sure we are not doing the typical HN thing of getting lost in an
endless and pointless minutiae argument --typical of programmers-- where
everyone is trying to find the missing "case:" statement in the poster's
scenario to show just how smart they are or have their position hold. If you
want to find one, you can, that doesn't mean these things are anywhere near
fault tolerant or safe to have flying everywhere.

There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying
around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from
hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of
property damage.

That's what we are talking about:

Taking pictures in exchange for creating public danger.

If you want to find a "case:" where my argument is wrong, feel free. YouTube
is full of evidence of the danger posed by these things.

At this point the genie is out of the bottle. As much as I hate heavy
government involvement this is likely becoming a case where no other option
remains on the table.

This has now become the gun debate with different hardware.

~~~
ceejayoz
> There is no position that can support the idea of someone having fun flying
> around and taking pictures in exchange for a range of negative outcomes from
> hurting to killing someone on the ground or causing varying degrees of
> property damage.

Again, that argument means I can't play baseball with my kids in the backyard.
It's not a standard I'm prepared to just accept on your say-so.

~~~
robomartin
>that argument means I can't play baseball with my kids in the backyard

Not even remotely close to the same thing. If you honestly see these two
activities as equivalent it likely explains why you are having trouble
understanding my point. That's just human nature. Which, as a lateral thought,
is one of the things that scares me about the future of AI. If people can't
see fundamentally simple things what erroneous preconceived notions are we
going to bake into AI?

Now, if you tell me you want to be able to toss a baseball at 90 miles per
hour in your backyard and hit it with a bat with the same force and violence
used in a ballpark, no, nobody should do that and if you think it is OK to
engage in this behavior I suggest you consider the idea of your neighbor doing
this and your own kid being hit in the head with a 100 mph baseball. The only
way something like this makes sense is if you have so much land that the ball
isn't even likely to leave your property.

Rights and how we choose to behave in a civilized society are a balancing act
between what we would like to do, how we would like to be have and how we want
others to behave towards us. If you don't want your kid killed in your own
backyard by a 100 mph baseball then don't suggest it is your right to fire
that baseball from your own backyard in a random direction. You have to care
for others as you want them to care for you and yours. It really is that
simple.

I don't want to burn down someone else's house or cause them harm. That's why
I don't fly my planes, helicopters or drones above other's property. In
exchange, I expect people to extend the same consideration towards me and my
family.

The same applies to loud music. I respect my neighbors and don't play music
loud or late enough to disturb them. I expect the same consideration in
return.

None of this is because of laws. This is how you have to behave in a civilized
society.

------
blhack
I wish all these rules just said: does not apply when flying below 200’ AGL.

Very frustrating to see that this industry is likely going to get stopped
before it even gets started.

~~~
burfog
It's long past time to raise the altitudes.

Aircraft typically need to stay above 500, and toys below 400. We could move
aircraft up to a minimum of 2000, move the toys up to a maximum of 1000, and
let the serious fancy big drones have 1200 to 1800.

~~~
cesarb
> Aircraft typically need to stay above 500 [...] We could move aircraft up to
> a minimum of 2000

Moving aircraft to a minimum of 2000 might mean not being able to stay below
the clouds. I randomly looked up the METAR for the nearest airport, and at the
moment, it has clouds at 1500.

~~~
burfog
If the clouds are only at 1500, it seems really unwise to fly without an
instrument rating. It wouldn't take much of a weather change to get a VFR-only
pilot in deep trouble. The clouds could quickly go right down to ground level.

Once an emergency develops, violating altitude rules is quite alright.

Changes to the rules could be an incentive for many pilots to become
instrument rated. That isn't a bad thing.

~~~
sokoloff
There are many stable weather patterns where the bases will stay steady at
1200-2000 feet AGL for many hours. Lots of airport pattern work and short
cross countries are safely flown in conditions like that.

Rotary wing aircraft are flying even lower than that fairly frequently.

------
madrox
In general, I don't think drone aviation has reached its tipping point, so I'm
glad things like this are happening in advance to control airspace. We can't
even agree about where scooters belong in cities, so I don't want "move fast
and break things" to be happening over my head. Whether or not it's the right
thing will get figured out in the long run.

------
dehrmann
Is this stricter than rules for small, manned propeller aircraft?

Arguably, they should be because there's a cost and training hurdle to being a
pilot that isn't there for drones, so the risk drones pose to safety is
greater than the average Cessna pilot.

------
kick
The way this is implemented, it would be trivial to spoof, wouldn't it? It
seems like only a matter of time before the people who pushed this regulation
feel the brunt of that.

~~~
awalton
> The way this is implemented, it would be trivial to spoof, wouldn't it?

Yeah but that's pretty much the case with anything flying today. The idea that
it's breaking federal law to spoof the ID and that it's relatively easy to
catch the guilty party due to the short range of the transceiver is deterrent
enough.

It's the equivalent of swapping car license plates, only with a greater
likelihood and penalty of being busted.

~~~
alasdair_
>it's relatively easy to catch the guilty party due to the short range of the
transceiver

There are lots of GPS-guided drones that don't need to talk to a transceiver
mid-flight.

------
Roark66
This is how they define the tech required "Remote ID is the ability of a UAS
in flight to provide identification information that can be received by other
parties".

I wonder if this definitely means the drone itself has to have an extra
transmitter or is an app running on the operator's smartphone enough. In
Europe people flying drones use an app that lets you "Check In" with local
airspace authority if you are operating in controlled area (where I am close
to 50% of airspace in 50km radius is some kind of controlled area).

If you don't want to use an app it is required to phone the area admin before
flying in controlled airspace. Also it is good to have a given day's map as it
shows today's low altitude military routes. One of those routes is nearby and
it is not uncommon to see F16's flying at ridiculous speeds at what appears to
be around 200m altitude. It is interesting that they don't show those routes
on US airspace maps I saw.

------
dependenttypes
More power to the goverment and less freedom and privacy for the citizen, what
could go wrong?

~~~
CamperBob2
Wait until someone is assassinated with one of these puppies. They will end up
prohibited entirely. :(

Collective punishment: it's OK when the government does it!

~~~
greenerpastures
This falls into the same gotcha as many laws. Someone with ill intentions is
not going to follow this law, so this law doesn't really stop this from
happening.

------
sillysaurusx
What penalties would someone face if they ignore this particular regulation?

I didn’t see any listed on the site. But are we talking a few thousand in
fines, or prison time?

------
bisrig
Am I reading this right that the standard remote ID broadcast is specified as
"something in an unlicensed band, everything else about it you figure it out"?
Isn't the point of this to be interoperable with other receiver systems for
things like BVLOS operation? Seems like a funny place to throw in a shoulder
shrug.

~~~
comex
Quote:

> With regard to direct broadcast capabilities, the ARC recommended the FAA
> adopt an industry standard for data transmission, which may need to be
> created, to ensure unmanned aircraft equipment and public safety receivers
> are interoperable, as public safety officials may not be able to equip with
> receivers for all possible direct broadcast technologies.

So the final rule will probably name a specific standard, but it’s TBD for
now.

------
upofadown
ADS-B[1] was and is somewhat pointless because it was not designed to
accommodate smaller flying things... the sort of things that there are a lot
more of.

So now we have a whole whack of incompatible systems like FLARM[2] to address
that segment. The FAA is actually promoting another incompatible system for
drones. This system won't actually allow anyone in the air to know the drone
is there. It will only be for the purposes of law enforcement ... because that
is the main priority right now...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM)

------
CrazyStat
Direct link to proposed regulations (PDF): [https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf)

------
exabrial
This is stupidly complicated. Why not just an iff tag?

------
mgrennan
Has anyone seen a RID device? Are any available? Approved? Will this be a "LAW
before the device" like CA Gun Microstamping?

------
bapp1236
These rules appear to make fpv racing drones impractical and all older, pre BS
rules drones very valuable.

------
yellow_lead
Enforcement of this should be interesting. Probably can't do much besides
restricting sale.

------
GiorgioG
Nope, no thanks. You don't get to intrude on my privacy because you want to
make it easier on you to catch some bad actor that is breaking the law.

For you gun owners out there, how would you like your concealed weapons
tracked this way. F __* that noise.

~~~
macintux
How exactly are you exercising your privacy by flying a dangerous object with
a camera over other peoples' property?

~~~
GiorgioG
If I’m on my property flying at 50 feet, the government does not have a right
to keep tabs on my activity without a warrant. Do you disagree?

------
mrfusion
This seems complicated but it’s a step in the right direction. I think
requiring a full pilots license to fly any drone would be best.

~~~
illgenr
Now that's flat out ridiculous.

~~~
snuxoll
I think training similar for what commercial drone pilots require isn’t far
fetched, however. A hobbyist probably doesn’t need to read aerospace maps,
METAR reports, etc., but should be able to answer the safety questions with
ease before they start flying their equipment.

I’ve held off on getting my Part 107 certification because I’m too lazy to
drive to the testing center, but this shit isn’t rocket science and puts up a
high enough barrier of entry to keep the skies reasonably safe.

I wish the FAA had gone this route first before debating potentially expensive
electronics on every consumer drone, I think it’s going to hurt more than it
helps.

------
madengr
Is there an aircraft size where ADS-B is required?

~~~
CrazyStat
No. In fact the proposed regulations specifically disallows drones from using
ADS-B unless they have filed a flight plan and the pilot is on radio with ATC,
or certain other exceptions. This is due to concerns about overcrowding the
ADS-B spectrum.

~~~
jrockway
It is unfortunate that “NextGen ATC” hit its scalability limit just a few days
before it became mandatory.

Maybe ADS-B-v6 will save us ;)

------
bapp1236
These rules appear to make FPV race drones impractical and make older, pre
this BS drones very valuable

------
Analemma_
The FAA is clearly taking a much longer view of this than most people on this
thread, and describing a system which scales safely to having huge drone
fleets in the sky, which most of the "just wing it, it'll work itself out"
counter-proposals here do not.

~~~
1996
The counterpoint being, the FAA rules will kill the chances of a future where
there would be huge drone fleets in the sky

~~~
james-mcelwain
Good. Drones are incredibly annoying and have already ruined many things like
a pleasant day in the park. I don't want to live in a future with huge drone
fleets buzzing around every time I step outside.

~~~
ggreer
People said the same thing about technologies such as automobiles, airplanes,
and cell phones. Yes, they have some annoyances and safety issues, but overall
they have made our lives much better. I would rather let each state and
municipality decide on whether to ban drones than to limit the future of the
entire country.

------
EGreg
I support this

Because think of all the rogue actors who can deploy anonymous drones
including from other countries

Right now all our skies are clear but once we have a lot of drone traffic, we
may have really bad stuff happen. It takes just one drone flying over a crowd
to cause massive problems. Let alone a coordinated attack in multiple areas.

If you don’t know who to go after, to make an example of, after a crime (what
if a drone drops grenades??) then you should be catching this drone with a net
and disabling it.

Drones are the first type of robot that will be in PUBLIC PLACES which is
cheap to produce. Autonomous cars are dangerous but expensive so we will not
likely encounter cars which are unregistered and we don’t know who made them.
But w drones it’s easy!!

 _To the downvoters: can you speak about how you would address the danger?
Let’s have a conversation_

~~~
godelski
> To the downvoters: can you speak about how you would address the danger?
> Let’s have a conversation.

Your concern seems to be about bad actors. Yet you also mention how easy and
cheap drones are to build. There's thousands of online tutorials showing how
to build them for extremely cheap. So how does this solution address the
problem of bad actors? Bad actors are just not going to install the
identification methods or remove them from commercial bought drones.

With a radio based system the only way you have to track these people down is
arrays of radios to track signals (automated fox hunting). But that doesn't
scale well. Tracking drones is really a difficult problem.

So considering that, what does this do other than harm good actors? Most of
the problems are really uninformed actors. Punishing people doesn't resolve
the issue of uninformed actors because you are being reactionary and not
proactive, meaning the damage is done.

I also find it ridiculous that drones are being regulated more than private
aircraft. Drones have such a lower potential for harm.

~~~
EGreg
It addresses it by making it open season to shoot down any drones who don’t
have it broadcasting, just like any rogue plane

~~~
godelski
1) It is illegal to shoot down drones

2) If it was legal, it would be a bad idea because you're shooting down
something with a lipo. Great way to start a fire.

3) Identifying a rogue drone is quite difficult. They aren't easy to see. And
how do you know the radio signal you are intercepting is theirs? It isn't
always that easy (in fact, that's what I was talking about with the city wide
fox hunt). This might be easy in a small area where there is only one thing
flying around, but as soon as you have multiple things it is hard to identify
what is what. The easiest way is to get a yagi and aim it at the drone, but
you're still going to have to follow it for awhile to make sure you have the
right one. And are you going to do that for every arbitrary flying object?
Seriously, that is a ridiculous notion.

"Honey there's a drone outside! Get my yagi so I can check if it is operating
legally or not!"

