jrm11
lvl.3
Flight distance : 224577 ft
United States
Offline
|
Ken,
I realize that you don't have the answers. But how does one go about getting them? Your comments have raised some serious issues.
"I don't think I deviated from that answer and if it seemed like I did than I'm sorry."
You actually didn't provide an answer to deviate from. The point is you implied that just about anyone at the airport can call up, claim there was a "sighting" and get information on anyone who is authorized for that area. You then corrected that to read valid law enforcement based on a collision. Then restated the information can be released based on a "sighting."
"I know the verification process is done through a third party and DJI does not keep that data."
What is the 3rd party's privacy policy? They will collect personal information. They will store that information. They will be releasing that information to 3rd parties under what exact conditions? This is all very important to know.
"If an incident happened it would probably take a Subpoena to get information from the 3rd party to find out who was in violation."
I realize you don't have the details, but "probably" doesn't cut it. It would also help to know what constitutes an "incident." An alleged sighting? A near-miss? A collision? Again, personal information is being collected and we have no idea of how or to whom it will be released.
"A random person wouldn't be able to say someone flew over my house and I need the name of the person that it was."
Forgetting for a moment that we have no idea if this is or is not the case.... You are moving the goalposts.
Your original comments were based around airports and possible sightings. We are talking about pilots/airport personnel claiming they have seen something which may or may not be a drone. Based on this allegation, there seems to be some mechanism for someone (airport personnel, FAA and/or LE) to get a list of anyone who used the DJI system to authorize for that area. We have no idea who that "someone" may be, what information will be released to them, under what circumstances it will be released or what the repercussions are for being on the list of names released.
As it seems, it then becomes the responsibility of that person to somehow prove they weren't flying at the alleged location at the time of the possible sighting. Using the authorization system seems to be an inadvertent form of self-incrimination (of an innocent person).
Someone at DJI needs to get their head screwed on straight and come up wth a formal policy addressing these critical points. Personal data privacy concerns should have been the FIRST item addressed in this new system.
There are many unanswered questions revolving around personal information. The lack of answers and detail is very disturbing. |
|