[magic_hamster]

While this is interesting (broadcast to whom exactly?) my main point is that DJI demands access to your smartphone location even for products that clearly have no use for this information, while giving you a sideloaded app which is banned from the official store. To me, these point to a trust issue.

[mschuster91]

> While this is interesting (broadcast to whom exactly?)

It's hard to find any information about how Remote-ID is supposed to work, but in theory the ID packets are sent by WiFi NAN and Bluetooth so that they can be received by anyone in the radio range (which is quite important for authorities to track down violators, e.g. people flying around hospital helipads). Unfortunately, current phones seem to lack support hardware-wise (see [1], page 6).

[1] https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/CEN-CENELEC/Events/Webinars/...

[sgtnoodle]

I'm not familiar with the EU side of things, but I am familiar with the FAA's regulations in the USA.

The FAA hasn't specified an implementation. It's on the manufacturer to come up with a means of compliance, and then get the FAA to sign off on it. There is a standard put out by the ASTM, which is heavily based on an open source project, OpenDroneID.

The standard moved away from NAN in the draft phase, in favor of vendor elements in 802.11 beacon frames. You can choose 802.11 or Bluetooth Low Energy. If you choose 802.11, 2.4ghz is required and 5ghz is recommended. If you choose BLE, v4 is required, and doing v5 as well is recommended.

[phpisthebest]

>which is quite important for authorities to track down violators

no, it is not. it is yet another power grab by the FAA and federal authorities to increase the surveillance state.

I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work

[mschuster91]

> I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work

You're participating in airspace, and if you want to participate in airspace you have to comply with the rules for participation to not endanger others.

In ye olde times, you had to do a pilot exam, and planes and choppers were/are expensive and had to transmit ADS-B information both for air traffic security and for keeping track of abuse. If you were caught abusing your privileges, you lost your license.

Why should drones be exempt of these rules, particularly as they are mass-market things (unlike airplanes) and thus the chance of them getting abused is far higher?

[phpisthebest]

None of that is true, there were always exemptions for Model Planes, Ultra Lights, etc.

Further this assume that I agreed with the "ye olde times" regulations, I dont. I largely disagree with all federal regulations for a multitude of reasons even going to the very basic that no where in the US Constitution is the FAA an authorized role of the federal government, at most it should be a state law not a federal law

[tunap]

While I initially balked at buying such spywares, I did break down and buy a Mini 2 last year(it's awesome!!!). I side-loaded the app on an old phone, sans SIM, with a pristine LOS install. Connected it to wifi to register & immediately put the phone in Airplane Mode.

Been meaning to research how to independently flash the drone's firmware offline to wipe collected data, but haven't delved into that yet. Any suggestions welcomed!