I'm starting my letter campaign to raise awareness over the FAA's ludicrous proposed rules.  I had mentioned in another thread that my idea was to approach media outlets and nonprofit organizations that may take interest in this issue.

This is my first stab at it.  This email just went out to Matthew Feeney who is the director of Cato Institute's Project on Emerging Technologies.  He has written numerous articles covering drone technology.  Cato is a non-profit D.C. based libertarian think tank.  If you are curious, I encourage you to peruse their various policy papers as they are very well written and accessible.  As this is just my first stab, it may be rough around the edges.  But I'm hoping these get better and more compelling as I write more.  Also, feel free to comment and/or copy ...

Quote:FAA Succumbs to Big Corporate

Dear Mathew,

I am writing to make you aware of the egregious regulations currently being proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in regards the use of recreational drones.  I understand that much of the material from Cato covering drone technology falls along the lines of privacy and (i.e., your own article), accountability, and efficacy.  As a long-time follower of the Cato Institute, I also fully understand that your organization stands for the principles of individual liberty and limited government.  It is with this understanding that I hope Cato will shed light on what the FAA is doing.

In summary, the FAA is proposing excessively restrictive rules on the recreational use of small unmanned aerial systems (i.e., less than 50 pounds) in violation of our privacy.  Namely, they are requiring ubiquitous remote identification capabilities on every recreational drone – the precise location of every single drone in the sky must be able to be tracked over the internet.  This so called “electronic conspicuity” is, according to the FAA, “… necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United Sates.”

This claim for safety is an excuse to impose this privacy violation and highly misleading on a number of counts:

*  There have been zero reported accounts of drone related fatalities versus the countless fatalities in public aviation every year (e.g., Boeing 737 Max 8 failures yet FAA allows them to self-certify).
*   By contrast the numerous accounts of collisions between manned aircraft or manned aircraft flying well below their prescribed flight ceilings.
*  Despite this strong claim for safety, the FAA provides no proper risk assessment study to substantiate such claim.

If the FAA’s safety claims are clearly without basis, then one must wonder what the likely motive is for this wholesale attempt to violate the privacy of an entire population of hobbyists numbering well into the millions.  It does not take a scholar to correlate the commercial pressure on the FAA to pave the way for commercial drone us:

*  Amazon, FedEx, UPS are just a few of the large, deep pocketed corporations that have been lobbying to clear the Federal airspace so they can proceed with the implementation of drone logistics.
*  Technology companies spanning a number of verticals stand to reap financial gains with the need to implement electronic transponders of every single drone currently being flown.

What the FAA is currently doing is in direct contrast to the very principles upon which Cato stands.  I hope you can find the time to look into this issue and consider raising awareness.

Best regards,

[the.ronin]

[edit]  I hate you spell check lol.  I need to re-read before I send these things.

Great idea!! And well written (but check sentence beginning "* By contrast..." - I think some words are missing). Any thoughts about including words regarding influence by foreign-based companies (like from China)?

I really don't trust many conspiracy theories (or those espousing them), but...

Speaking of companies from China, not only does DJI stand to gain from this, but companies like Huawei could stand to gain (these ID's will most like travel over future 5G). If you want to plant a conspiracy theory in the minds of lawmakers in control of the FAA, what better one than "What other information will be sent from our drones to China?"

This is an older article (from July) on Huawei, but you get the idea: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...h-projects

Oh thank you scotty!! I totally forgot about the China angle!!

Alright ... this one went out to Wired magazine. I was hoping to send it directly to a David Pierce who covers a lot of drone tech for the mag but I just could not find his email.

Quote:FAA Succumbs to Big Corporate

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to make you aware of the egregious regulations currently being proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect to the use of recreational drones and the gross violation of privacy among its millions of hobbyists at the behest of big corporate.  Having been an avid follower of Wired magazine since it’s inception, I know full well your publication’s mission to advancing technology and raising awareness of issues surrounding the field.  It is with this understanding that I hope Wired magazine will shed light and raise awareness on how the FAA is stifling a burgeoning technology through unfounded regulations driven by dubious motives.

In summary, the FAA is proposing excessively restrictive rules on the recreational use of small unmanned aerial systems (i.e., less than 50 pounds) in gross violation of our privacy.  Namely, they are requiring ubiquitous remote identification capabilities on every recreational drone – the precise location of every single drone in the sky must be able to be tracked over the internet.  This so called “electronic conspicuity” is, according to the FAA, “… necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United Sates.”

This claim for safety is an excuse to impose this privacy violation and highly misleading on a number of counts:

*  There have been zero reported accounts of drone related fatalities versus the countless fatalities in public aviation every year (e.g., Boeing 737 Max 8 failures yet FAA allows them to self-certify).
*   By contrast, there are innumerous accounts of collisions between manned aircraft as well as manned aircraft flying well below their prescribed flight floors.
*  Despite this strong claim for safety, the FAA provides no proper Risk Assessment Study to substantiate such a strong claim which they rely on to justify the excessive regulations.
*  On the contrary, by enabling Chinese-based companies (e.g., Shenzhen-based SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. or "DJI") to be on the forefront of “electronic conspicuity,” they are in fact exposing American data to the Chinese apparatchik thereby directly compromising American national security.

If the FAA’s safety claims are clearly without merit, then one must wonder what the likely motive is for this wholesale attempt to violate the privacy of an entire population of millions of hobbyists.  It does not take a scholar to correlate the commercial pressure on the FAA to pave the way for commercial drone us:

*  Amazon, FedEx, and UPS are just a few of the large, deep pocketed corporations that have been lobbying to clear the Federal airspace so they can proceed with the implementation of drone logistics.
*  Technology companies spanning many verticals stand to reap financial gains with the need to implement electronic transponders of every single drone currently being flown (many of which are based in China and under complete auspices of the Chinese Communist Party).

Worst of all, what the FAA is currently doing will stifle the rapidly evolving drone technology.  Much of this advancement in driven by its millions of hobbyists typically with engineering or mathematical backgrounds.  By imposing such restrictive violations of privacy among these hobbyists, many will spend less time advancing the technology and many still will leave the hobby outright.  And all this for the sake of appeasing the long reach of big corporate while inadvertently exposing American privacy to foreign influence.  Our government agencies should not be so malleable - nor naive.

Best regards,

[the.ronin]

There are four democratic senators that have recently taken on big tech on privacy issues. Since at its core, our gripe with the FAA is really a privacy matter, it may be worth reaching out to them. I will be doing so, but if any of you are so inclined and live in their states, that might have a little more impact being one of their voting constituents (I live in California):

Sen. Maria Cantwell - Washington
Sen. Brian Schatz - Hawaii
Sen. Ed Markey - Massachusetts
Sen. Amy Klobuchar - Minnesota

Changed the thread title because "ronin vs FAA" seemed a little self righteous at second glance lol.

This is more appropriate.

Why this didn't occur to me earlier, I have no idea.  We are HUGE fans of Hasan Minhaj's Patriot Act which covers travesties precisely like the one we are facing.  Given the more hip nature of his show, I took a different "idiomatic tack" (read: excuse the language LOL) but the content is the same ...

Quote:Amazon Owns The FAA

Dear Hasan,

Your show is like crack for the brain.  You are a better looking, wittier version of John Oliver in some dope Air Jordans.  That’s no joke … and the FAA pandering to big corporate while stomping on us drone hobbyists is really also no joke.  It’s an issue of a government agency being bought out by the likes of Amazon under the guise of “public safety” when in fact they are stomping on privacy rights.  Oh and by the way, exposing our personal data to the Chinese Communist Party.  Like I said, no joke.

In summary, the FAA is requiring ubiquitous remote identification capabilities on every recreational drone – the precise location of every single drone in the sky must be able to be tracked over the internet.  This so called “electronic conspicuity” is, according to the FAA, “… necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United Sates.”

This claim for safety is, frankly, bullsh*t:

*  There have been zero reported accounts of drone related fatalities versus the countless fatalities in public aviation every year (e.g., Boeing 737 Max 8 failures yet FAA allows them to self-certify).
*   By contrast, there are innumerous accounts of collisions between manned aircraft as well as manned aircraft flying well below their prescribed flight floors.
*  Despite this strong claim for safety, the FAA provides no proper Risk Assessment Study to substantiate such a strong claim which they rely on to justify the excessive regulations.
*  On the contrary, by enabling Chinese-based companies (e.g., Shenzhen-based SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. or "DJI") to be on the forefront of “electronic conspicuity,” they are in fact exposing American data to the Chinese apparatchik thereby directly compromising American national security.

If the FAA’s safety claims are indeed bullsh*t, then one must wonder what the likely motive is for this wholesale attempt to violate the privacy of an entire population of millions of hobbyists.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out:

*  Amazon, FedEx, and UPS are just a few of the large, deep pocketed corporations that have been lobbying to clear the Federal airspace so they can proceed with the implementation of drone logistics.
*  Technology companies spanning many verticals stand to reap financial gains with the need to implement electronic transponders of every single drone currently being flown (many of which are based in China and under complete auspices of the Chinese Communist Party).

Worst of all, what the FAA is currently doing will stifle the rapidly evolving drone technology.  Let’s face it – the drone hobby is a bunch of nerds.  But pretty damn smart nerds.  When the FAA first decided to dip its dirty, corrupt fingers into this hobby, they drew a line in the sand saying that anything less than 250 grams is excluded.  The thought being that these nerds won’t be able to fly anything worth a damn that’s under 250 grams.  Well nerds united!  In no time, we were building very capable drones well under 250 grams.  This is the sort of technological advancement you can’t find at IBM (yes, I know that shows my age).  Point being, if these bastards get what they want, a lot of us passive nerds are just going to take a step back from the hobby or just leave outright.  This technology which has been used by recreational hobbyists to aid in noble efforts such as search & rescue will, without a doubt, stagnate.

And all this for the sake of appeasing the long reach of big corporate while inadvertently exposing American privacy to foreign influence.  Our government agencies should not be so malleable - nor naive.  

I hope this has provided you with enough background to consider raising awareness on this issue.  Please let me know if I can direct you to additional content and resources my fellow nerds have painstakingly put together to shine light on the FAA’s reprehensible behavior.

Best regards,

[the.ronin]