that's not quite the same thing, as it doesn't provide "name and adress", no?
Again: once an identifier is available, correlating it with other information is trivial.
With nothing more than two postal codes (ZIP codes in the US), representing home and work, it's possible to individually identify about 90% of the population. That information is available via, say, geocoded location using mobile phone or tracking cookie data.[1]
In the case of device or vehicle tracking such as with drones, it's highly likely that a given device would be used within a particular jurisdiction or activity region. If you can pinpoint specific locations and times within those (e.g., police activity around an address + drone activity, activity following specific infrastructure such as power lines or gas distribution, training locations, etc., etc.) you can probably come up with a strong idea of who operates or owns the equipment.
That is more-or-less the process that was used to identify CIA-operated aircraft used in renditions for "enhanced interrogation" (torture) by amateur plane watchers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_aircraft https://web.archive.org/web/20130616175922/http://www.common...
________________________________
Notes:
1. The home+work ZIP anecdote is the one I recall. I'm not finding that specifically though this paper mentions four spatio-temporal locations sufficing for 95% of the population: Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, César A. Hidalgo, Michel Verleysen & Vincent D. Blondel, "Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility", Scientific Reports volume 3, Article number: 1376 (2013) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376