How your drone is detected and tracked: Is this Remote ID?

In this video, we'll give you an insider's view of drone detections. Join Greg and Brandon as they discuss the hardware, software, and UI of Aerial Armor's Aeroscope drone detection system. This system closely replicates what remote ID may come to look like when it's released in 2023. If you ever wonder: can my drone be tracked or detected, you will find out.
Remember, don't shoot the messenger.

00:00 Introduction
01:01 What is the purpose of this technology
03:56 What does this software do?
05:39 Live Flight
07:25 Is this a Remote ID Solution?
11:20 Multiple drone live flight
16:29 Whitelist/Blacklist
18:07 What is the price range on your systems?
20:55 Software Deep Dive
27:42 Historical flight path by S/N
29:07 Query the database from S/N
31:05 Success stories
32:41 Closing thoughts

Free drone registration labels:

Our Other Channels

Our courses

Get Pilot Institute Gear

[Ericjeep]

Being a drone pilot for a little over 2 years now, I can see how one would think this might be helping the hobby. It's most definitely going to help kill it. PLEASE don't make this software available to law enforcement/government! Give them copies of your collected data if an offense has been committed/law broken but, DO NOT give them access to using the software!

[shannoncombs]

This should be illegal for use expect in controlled air space only. The history part of the tracking should be illegal if it show flights in uncontrolled air space. Its no different than law enforcement tracking cars to watch for infractions while people are exercising the right to free movement on public highways. Its fine for controlled air space but it should be illegal to track flights in uncontrolled air space.

[MaxStanden]

As a commercial full scale pilot, 14+ year and counting Fpv hobbyist and more recent commercial Alta X operator I can only see a long list of cons vs the pros with this software. I had my doubts about DJI and their flight data collection but now seeing this I will definitely no longer be supporting any DJI projects and most likely will be returning to much more simple flight controllers that do not transmit or store any flight data. All flying I do is perfectly legal and within regulations but the thought of having big brother keeping an eye on all flight data along with the possibility of having control being taken over by a remote entity definitely gives me a lot of concern with personal safety and privacy. Very sad to see where the hobby/industry has come over the years with such great advances in technology that are advancing and ruining it at the same time.

[JammyBFPV]

I think this is an infringement on you’re right to privacy especially if it’s on your own property. It’s effectively monitoring information third parties aren’t suppose to be able to record

[Pkarchpray]

"For safety" or not this is a blatant 4th ammendment violation. And sending most law enforcement to "educate" is worthless. Majority of cops have 0 idea about FAA laws and jurisdiction, much less what a part 107 operator would know over them.

[HelloNotMe]

"In the wrong hands, it could be considered an invasion of privacy." Pretty good reason to make sure that the government and law enforcement should never be allowed within 13, 000 miles of it.

[garettjones]

The people being detected by these drones should be notified they are being tracked, and should be able to request all info the Aerial Armor has on their drone's serial number, similar to the way you can request a user profile report from Facebook with all the data they have on your profile, or from a police record. Keeping data on people when they don't have access to it seems morally wrong, and should be illegal in my opinion.

[corgon]

"our intent is not to get people arrested or have security go out".... But we have a direct line with the authorities so those fuckers can bum rush you.

[DanielMcFeeters]

I've followed the remote ID discussion for some time now. While the final draft from the FAA isn't as bad as it could have been (at least drones don't have to always be interconnected), these guys from Aerial Armor have already built the dystopian tracking and logging network that we feared. Not that anyone should do something illegal--I get that, but essentially now every drone pilot has a "file" and with a click, this company can bring up a log of every flight, with all telemetry, for years. Imagine a system like this for cars: every car has a transmitter that sends out its license plate number / VIN number, GPS coordinates, current speed, etc. Then governments / companies build a network of receivers so that, with a click, the police could pull up a log of every place I've visited, dates and times, how fast I drove, whether I made an illegal left turn, ran a red light etc. Anyway I realize it has its purpose but it seems like too many steps down the wrong road to surveillance and government overreach.

[mycents]

You guys are taken the fun away. I want to fly a drone to feel free as a bird. But now I'm stressed on who has my data. Thanks tucktards.

[crithpyy]

It is interesting that, at no point, was this technology described as being able to separate good actors from bad, other than ear-marking a signal for future reference. Herein lies the issue; lawful pilots should not be tracked *at all. Period.* As a pilot, I understand where good and bad places to fly are, as well as the FAA regulations I have to abide by, but I do not expect security/police to know the law. This technology leaves pilots open to harassment, since police officers can simply write you an unlawful ticket, and pin the cost of fighting the ticket *on you.* I certainly see the upside to this technology, but it has the same downside as drones - bad actors.

Also, the whole idea of this system covering an entire city or county does not makes sense outside of areas with a standing TFR. We've seen cities and municipalities go after drones in an incredibly illegal way, and this would only aid them, thereby pinning the costs on the only people they do not care about - average, law-abiding citizens. This system is brilliant for large sporting events and festivals, to ensure crowds of people are not at risk, but other than that seems to tread into a 4th Amendment grey area at the very least.

All the best to the people at Aerial Armor, but I heavily disagree with many of the use cases for this system.

[kendriesbaugh]

Thanks Greg for providing this informative video. I've always had a problem with companies who would sell their technology to the gooberment and not citizens. We're not talking about missiles, this is essentially, a fancy radio receiver. It would take 2 seconds to attach a name to each drone and one wouldn't even need a warrant. Just find where this person flies the most (their back yard), look up the address on the county's gis tax map and you got their name and everything about them. Pretty sick that some people think it's a good idea to keep a database of everywhere I decide to fly a toy. This should be illegal.

[michaellacock]

This is scary stuff... imagine if this level of surveillance was involved with cars, people wouldn't put up with it and the drone community shouldn't put up with this surveillance either. I understand that there are bad drone pilots, but this isn't going to stop those people with ill intent.

[huginnkenningard]

DJI Aeroscope is the main reason I switched to Autel... this is not used to "educate" hobbyst, this is used to "hunt" and fine hobbyst, photogaphers and videographers even if they are not endangering anyone or anything.

[dan_youtube]

Thank you for the information. Now we all know the good times of flying a drone are gone. It was nice while it lasted.

[ShermanKenB]

Personally I feel remote ID does very little for safety. To me it is clearly a law enforcement tool and I would much rather have some that actually makes all pilots safer when they are in the air, meaning improving situational awareness and things like reducing potential in air incidents with other aircraft.

[tedcraft]

I like the part where the guy admits that that "we integrate several other systems on the mitigation side of the technology that does allow for takeover or jamming or return to home." I mean, what could go wrong? Nothing bad ever happens when companies are allowed to track you, spy on you, and steal your data. "We only sell to governments and law enforcement" is exactly the line taken by the makers of the Pegasus spyware. And not a syllable of pushback from you, Greg.

[gnirtSs]

What this does highlight is DJI outright lied about end to end encryption between the drone and controller.
Ultimately for Aeroscope to be able to access this information it has to be unencrypted or using a static, pre-coded key.
Either option means that any 3rd party, not just DJI, can reverse engineer the protocol and acquire the same information.

It seems the claim about E2E is only for things like the video stream but NOT the other telemetry. They expose that data outside the encrypted wrapper.

Something else touched on but not elaborated was the ability with other systems to take over a drone (not just jam). That would again hint at either no encryption or a backdoor in the protocol.

So remember - the fact Aeroscope works at all means that its possible for any suitably advanced 3rd party to access the very same data.

[georose]

Good work comrades. This will force somebody to create a hacked, undetectable operating system.

[priceward]

You shouldn’t under any circumstances have to give the government your transmitter or home point location. The drone location is understandable.