Drones could someday have a sort of invisible license plate that allows local authorities to determine who the unmanned aerial system (UAS) belongs too. Pitched by Chinese drone manufacturer DJI, the concept for an electronic identification system for small drones is just one of many ideas as the Federal Aviation Administration looks into potential ways of identifying drone users.
DJI suggests drones should use the radio equipment already on board most systems to transmit a unique registration number. That number would identify the drone owner to law enforcement in the event of a complaint or flight through a restricted area. Areas with restricted drone flight, such as airports, could use radio equipment to read that number and report the ID number to the authorities. Since identifying the drone would require access to a database linking each number with a name, the invisible license plate approach would be less likely to be abused outside of law enforcement, DJI suggests.
"The best solution is usually the simplest," DJI wrote on Monday. "The focus of the primary method for remote identification should be on a way for anyone concerned about a drone flight in close proximity to report an identifier number to the authorities, who would then have the tools to investigate the complaint without infringing on operator privacy."
Source: Digital Trends
Related: FAA Drone Registry to be Publicly Searchable
FAA Doubles "Blanket Authorization" Altitude for Drones to 400 Feet
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:13PM (6 children)
So what's the rationale exactly behind it being more secret than car license plates? I'm not opposed to it. But I am concerned that a "private" law enforcement database just means that only government and hackers will be able to track drones. That is worse than everybody being able to track them.
Even worse than that will be that everybody assumes they aren't being tracked, which is also false. At least with license plates, we all know that our car could theoretically be tracked from one place to another.
Secrets are bad, m'kay?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:21PM (4 children)
I only scanned the article but didn't see any notes about it being encrypted. If it is broadcasting an open standard it should be easy for anyone to monitor the unique ID of drones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:26PM
Monitor, and spoof.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
So, I record the broadcast of the drone when the person I don't like is flying - clone that data onto mine without ever needing to decrypt and I'm ready for to frame them when I send the drone somewhere secure? Or just clone one from a very different location before the crime?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:48PM
Hopefully they also use some sort of time dependent unique code to prevent this, like how an RSA key works.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by richtopia on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:53PM
You could do the same thing with a traditional license plate on a car.
http://www.dailytech.com/Students+Use+Speed+Cameras+to+Frame+Innocent+Drivers+Prank+Teachers/article13749.htm [dailytech.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:25PM
I think at this point it's pretty much inevitable that some form of license tracking/registration is going to be applied to drones in most - if not all - jurisdictions thanks to a few idiots and knee jerk responses to some limited terror use (a virtual license plate certainly isn't going to deter a criminal/terrorist planning on using a drone for something from doing so). In that light, it might be much better to push for a minimal tracking system based on an established model people are generally comfortable with now, rather than waiting for some politician without a clue spouting the usual "won't someone think of the children!" crap to come up with something far worse.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!