Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

dronedj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 742 posts

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#211

Post by throwaway_j12 »

questhimay wrote: post #186
dangoor wrote: post #73

For people wonder how this got there, the blame goes to Rep. Elise Stefanik: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864 That bill was tacked onto a big "must pass" defense authorization and may not have survived on its own. Here's an article with some speculation on why Stefanik introduced this bill: https://dronexl.co/2024/06/06/drone-industry-outrage-stefani...

[flagged]

Doesn't this seem at odds with the facts?

China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India.

China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.

China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#212

Post by stavros »

newfriend wrote: post #195
stavros wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I think when I read one of these "EU stifles innovation" comments. It sounds to me like the equivalent of not wanting socialized healthcare because "the poors" might get it, not caring about the fact that you're the one who will benefit. This is the "everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" of consumer rights. Everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed capitalist overlord.

This is a strawman. "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it". Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.

> "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".

That's fair, I should have said "because the poors might benefit". Rich people don't like socialized healthcare because they, by definition, will pay for people who can't afford it.

The problem is when people who will benefit from this identify with people who will lose from it.

> People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.

They do, but here we're talking about the opposite: People being against policies they benefit from, because they identify with the group that will not.

P.S. I liked your comment, it was a reasoned reply that furthers the debate, thank you.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#213

Post by dji4321234 »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #185

I'm curious if Anzu Robotics would be permitted under the ban. For those unfamiliar, they use DJI Mavic 3 hardware manufactured in Malaysia with US-written software: https://www.therobotreport.com/anzu-robotics-launches-u-s-ba...

They shouldn't be; they use DJI basebands, so banning DJI and their affiliates using the FCC Covered List should also prevent Anzu from getting new FCC equipment approvals. It's unclear whether the FCC would revoke existing approvals, although it certainly seems like what Congress wants. And if they do, it's unclear if they'd go to the effort to hunt down Anzu and Cogito, but on paper, they certainly should.

By the way, there's no US-written software on Anzu drones. They're just green Mavic 3 Enterprises with a phone app that integrates the DJI SDK. Flying a DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise and an Anzu Raptor using Aloft Air Control will produce exactly identical results in terms of American-ness and data transfer.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#214

Post by troupo »

blantonl wrote: post #136
glitchcrab wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an utterly ridiculous response. In your eyes, businesses should be able to run roughshod over the consumer? Yes, maybe the laws could have been more polished or have been implemented in a better way, but the underlying idea of protecting the consumer is the important takeaway from these laws.

to also be fair, I just recently returned from Europe and I was shocked at how maddeningly frustrating it was to simply use the Web. Between shockingly obtrusive GDPR consent forms and outright blocks on Websites from EU consumers, it was a wild look at what Europeans have to go through under the guise of consumer protections. Like, the pendulum swung WAY too far in the other direction.

> Between shockingly obtrusive GDPR consent forms

Imagine if companies didn't collect copious amounts of user data and didn't try to use every trick in the book and all known dark patterns to make you give up that data.

"We care about privacy by selling your data to 2765 'partners' and are blaming GDPR for this"

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#215

Post by glitchcrab »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #193
glitchcrab wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as the idea of GDPR (and specifically cookie consent) is well intentioned, the actual laws themselves aren't great. Cookie consent is especially frustrating because it encourages the creators of the consent popups to use dark patterns to try and trick people into just accepting them.

Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.

Correct, but unfortunately that applies to the vast majority of websites. It wouldn't be so bad if the consent dialogs had an option to reject all optional cookies but unfortunately too many of them still try and trick or force you into accepting all cookies.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#216

Post by klipklop »

Tepix wrote: post #78
empath75 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).

Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?

Except you can totally use a DJI drone for war. I saw a video the other day of such a drone modified to drop airsoft grenades. Does not take much to replace it with the real thing.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#217

Post by troupo »

doublepg23 wrote: post #210
dghlsakjg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.

Do you think the official EU site uses unnecessary cookies? https://european-union.europa.eu/

1. Yes it does

2. It clearly explains which cookies it uses in the linked policy page

3. It has an opt-out that is as easy as the opt-in (as required by law)

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#218

Post by LeifCarrotson »

burnte wrote: post #14
Zealotux wrote: post #8

Naive question: what prevents Americans from simply buying Dji products in Canada? It's a physical product, so banning it like TikTok or big vehicles is impossible, or am I missing something?

Since the control apps tap into GPS so they know when you're in a restricted zone, the gov't could simply make them mark all of the US as a restricted zone and the drone will never fly. I have one, I'm not happy about this.

This would have to come from the firmware in the drone looking up what the no-fly zones were. GPS is transmit-only location, it can't write no-fly zone data to a particular drone.

The drone would look it up through a connected cell phone using a web service like this:

https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/

I think (hope) it would be a hard sell to send different data from faa.gov to DJI drone lookups versus other brands, but on the other hand this complete brand ban is apparently politically possible.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#219

Post by troupo »

glitchcrab wrote: post #215
dghlsakjg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.

Correct, but unfortunately that applies to the vast majority of websites. It wouldn't be so bad if the consent dialogs had an option to reject all optional cookies but unfortunately too many of them still try and trick or force you into accepting all cookies.

> It wouldn't be so bad if the consent dialogs had an option to reject all optional cookies

As is explicitly required by law

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#220

Post by markemer »

ulfw wrote: post #146

So what's America's plan to survive? Ban almost everything they used to buy? (i.e. goods manufactured in China) Which Made in the Good Ol' US of A consumer drones are people supposed to purchase instead of a DJI Mini?

We make so much in China, I don’t get what the deal is, here. Just that a US billionaire isn’t making the money?
Post reply on HN