[Lee Hyun-woo’s Crooked Line] 91% of drones for complete farmland survey are Chinese-made… Farmland data security raised in three National Assembly audits

[Lee Hyun-woo’s Crooked Line] Farmland complete-survey drones 91% Chinese-made…Farmland data security raised in three National Assembly audits

103 units, of which 94 units, response came after the fact

Of the 103 drones flown to examine the ownership and use status of farmland nationwide, 94 units(91.3%) were products of China’s DJI . There were 5 U.S.-made units, and only 4 domestic units. Of the 41 drones deployed in Gyeonggi and Gangwon, where frontline units are stationed, 39 units(95.1%) were also aircraft from the same company. The software used to reconstruct filmed footage in 3D was Russia-based Agisoft(Agisoft)’s ‘Metashape’. This was disclosed by People Power Party Rep. Kim Yong-tae at the National Assembly Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans and Fisheries Committee’s audit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on the 7th.

Asked why Chinese-made products were used, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Song Mi-ryung replied, “budget issues”. The minister said she learned that such equipment had been used only after seeing recent media reports. The ministry issued explanatory materials that same day to clarify the matter. It said the local data mode(LDM) was turned on so that filmed materials were stored only on the aircraft and controller, SD cards are kept on an internal Korea Rural Community Corporation server cut off from external networks. At a briefing the next day, Minister Song explained that filming with Chinese-made drones had been temporarily suspended, and regarding concerns over filming in military border areas, she said, “No drone filming has taken place. It is impossible”. The starting point of this issue is that, until the matter was pointed out, the minister in charge did not even know the equipment status.
 

‘Simple equipment·goods’: drones filming national territory classified as such

14At the National Assembly audit of the Korea Rural Community Corporation on the th, the basis for skipping the security review emerged. Democratic Party of Korea Rep. Yoon Jun-byeong pointed out that “under the National Cybersecurity Basic Guidelines, security reviews for drones that fall under simple equipment and goods may be omitted, but agencies are required to establish and implement their own supplementary measures”, and Korea Rural Community Corporation President Kim In-jung replied that the review was omitted in accordance with the guidelines. Instead, he explained, “because data could be leaked if the drones are online, we required them to be used offline”. Rep. Yoon pointed out two more things. The 29 units ordered by Gyeonggi Province used the service contractor’s own software, and the 65 units ordered by the corporation were allowed to be used only offline in an environment with security measures in place, thereby blocking leakage routes. He also added that Chinese-made products cost about 40% of domestic products.

No regulation was violated. The problem is that regulation. Building information on farmland ownership and use is, in effect, accumulating national land information. Yet the equipment that gathers that data was classified in the same category as office supplies. Even if the corporation established its own measures, the formal procedure known as a security review did not operate from the start. This classification carries more weight than the aircraft’s country of origin.

22At the comprehensive audit on the nd, the government’s response came. Minister Song said, “Upon investigation, we found that more than 500 drones are in use in the agriculture and forestry sector alone”, and said the ministry would begin research and development(R&D) for domestic production this year. It was also confirmed that day, from the minister’s own mouth, that the agriculture ministry had been left out of the ‘National Drone·Counter-Drone Great Transformation Promotion Strategy’ finalized under the chairmanship of the prime minister last 6month. The minister said the ministry would participate soon. In other words, a ministry that routinely uses drones for pest control, observation, and surveys had not been listed in a government-wide drone policy. 8It took about two weeks from the suspension of filming on the th to the policy on 22nd to pursue domestic-production R&D·and participation in the government-wide strategy. The response was quick, but all of it came after the problem surfaced.
 

What must be done quickly before domestic production is achieved

What the National Assembly audit mainly asked about was the equipment’s country of origin. But security is not completed by a single aircraft. The aircraft, video-processing software, storage media, and the people and procedures handling them are connected as one chain. If even one part of this is lax, data can leak out. That is why it is necessary to examine not only who made the equipment, but also through what route the data travels and where it accumulates.

Farmland data will accumulate even faster going forward. The agricultural and forestry satellite launched last 7month will begin full-scale operation next year after verification. 3It will observe farmland nationwide on a -day cycle and be used for checking compliance with the direct payment system, supply and demand management, and disaster response. The direction of pursuing science-based agricultural administration through satellites and drones, and artificial intelligence(AI) is correct. But if procurement, security, and operational management at the data-collection stage are lax, the policies built on top of them will also be shaken.

Domestic production takes time. There are things that must be done quickly in the meantime. First, agricultural drones and video-processing software that film national territory must be removed from the category of ‘simple equipment·goods’, and clearly designated as subject to security review. And when drone filming is outsourced, the contract must include security requirements for the entire process, from filming to processing and storage. Finally, the agricultural sector must be included as an independent item in the government-wide drone strategy to create demand so that domestic aircraft can be used in the field. There must be no repeat, in the National Assembly audit hall, of a situation in which the criteria for choosing equipment that gathers national land information are explained as ‘budget issues’.