AUVSI Deems Remote ID Rule Necessary and Beneficial

A United States Court has issued an opinion denying a petition for review of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Remote ID rule. Subject rule requires unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) to be equipped with components or systems by which they may be individually but anonymously identified—after the fashion in which a license plate identifies an automobile without publicly disclosing the identity of the vehicle’s owner.

The court’s opinion states: “Drones are coming. Lots of them. They are fun and useful. But their ability to pry, spy, crash, and drop things poses real risks. Free-for-all drone use threatens air traffic, people and things on the ground, and even national security. Congress recognizes as much. It passed a law in 2016 requiring the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of unmanned aircraft systems …”

The substance of the court’s opinion aligns with assertions put forth by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) in an October 2021 amicus Curiae Brief. Of particular salience is the brief’s introduction, which posits: “AUVSI and its members have a strong interest in the disposition of this case, in which petitioners challenge a rule of the Federal Aviation Administration imposing requirements related to the remote identification of drone systems during flight. As the Federal Aviation Administration has repeatedly recognized, remote identification is a necessary step towards enabling expanded operations of such systems, such as operations over people and beyond visual line of sight. Vacating or remanding the remote identification rule would set the development of rules governing remote and autonomous systems back months, if not years.”

The petitioner to whom the AUVSI refers is Tyler Brennan, a drone retailer and user who alleged: “… the rule’s remote ID requirement amounts to constant, warrantless governmental surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Mr. Brennan’s allegation was deemed unfounded insomuch as drones are virtually always flown in public. Ergo, requiring a drone to show its location and that of its operator while the drone is aloft in the open air violates no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Brennan further alleged law enforcement could use the Remote ID rule to carry out continuous surveillance of drone pilots’ public locations, amounting to a constitutionally cognizable search.

Brennan failed, however, to establish that any such uses of the Remote ID rule had harmed or imminently would harm him. Having so failed, Brennan—for lack of standing—presented no justiciable—as applied—challenge.

The AUVSI has commended the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit for upholding the FAA’s Remote ID rule. The organization states that it looks forward to the continuing implementation of said rule, and declares that it shall continue to advocate for a federal regulatory framework that facilitates scalable, secure, and sustainable commercial drone operations.

FMI: www.auvsi.org