[Cryptography] DJI calls for drone IFF

[Henry Baker]

FYI --

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/5c56Q4zS1ga3ZvwSuegws4Cx3mN4zlwqCROtedLyux8ZybUq76G1omOOSrh0cYoz/file?dl=1

A DJI Technology Whitepaper

"What's In a Name?"  A Call for a Balanced Remote Identification Approach
March 22, 2017

The Utility of Remote Identification Technologies

Section 2202 of the 2016 FAA Extension Act contemplates the development of remote
identification technologies for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).  Regulatory proposals in
Europe, including from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and in European Union
member states such as France and Germany, have also called for remote identification
technology.  Indeed, Italy and Denmark apparently already mandate these technologies, in
regulations that seem not to be enforced because the means of compliance do not yet exist. 
Remote identification is potentially a problem-solving approach to addressing policy concerns
including security and accountability.

DJI believes that laws of general applicability should apply to drones, just as they do to
other technologies.  For example, a law that makes unlawful surveillance illegal should apply to
misconduct using drones as it would apply to misconduct using other types of cameras.  These
laws of general applicability have been created by lawmakers over decades and balance
competing interests including privacy interests, community values, national legal traditions,
cultural norms, the First Amendment (and similar doctrines outside the United States), and
journalism interests, among others.  The balance reached after decades of legislation and
jurisprudence should not be disrupted each time a new technology comes along.  Operational
rules relating to UAS obviously apply as well.

...

-------
Whenever you hear a lawmaker use the phrase "balanced approach", you should vote against
him/her and start filing lawsuits, because the "balance" being sought is typically that
of destroying your rights as an individual -- including all of the rights embodied in
the Bill of Rights.

The first use of DJI's "identification code" will be for law enforcement to snoop.

The second use of DJI's identification code will be for resale to advertising companies.

The third use of DJI's identification code will be for law enforcement targeting -- e.g.,
for miniature missiles and/or lasers to automatically destroy your drone.

The fourth use of DJI's identification code" will be for hackers to allow their drone
to pretend to be your drone, so that you will be "swatted" when the hacker's drone
dones something illegal.

----
Aren't there more sophisticated IFF schemes already in existence?