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

451–460 of 742 posts

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

#451

Post by downrightmike »

datahack wrote: post #370
deepGem wrote: post #326

DJI's response (a bit dated) https://dronedj.com/2024/03/02/dji-response-drone-ban-us/ The allegations are so subjective that they sound like some middle schooler complaining to their mom. “DJI drones are collecting vast amounts of sensitive data – everything from high-resolution images of critical U.S. infrastructure to facial recognition technology and remote sensors that can measure an individual’s body temperatur…

Allowing a company that repeatedly violates basic app store rules and exports data to a country with adversarial interests unrestricted access to our infrastructure via drones is highly problematic. This problematic situation extends in many ways to critical sectors of our economy, including agriculture, energy, defense, etc. The data collected by these drones is extensive and sensitive. Crop data alone is crucial, a…

Its funny because app store rules aren't laws. If we were really concerned about privacy, we'd have our own strong GDPR that mandated privacy and control measures and controls. Banning things doesn't work because the base foundational protections aren't there.

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

#452

Post by b112 »

luma wrote: post #246
mcculley wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US made a very serious mistake by Was it a mistake if the goal was to get cheaper products at the expense of foreigners losing fingers? I agree it is myopic policy for the long term, but certainly many voters are happy to push safety problems somewhere else.

It is bad policy long term, and this policy has been around for a long time. At some point we need to address bad policy.

As duties and trade restrictions were dropped in the late 70s and 80s, the mantra was that by doing so, the West would "uplift" poorer countries such as China. The goals to improve quality of life, transform the third world from agrarian to mass production, with a hope of spreading democratic principles as well.

And yes, over and over this was the desireded goal, I remember the election campaigns, the speeches, the white papers, the think tanks.

This has mostly been a success, looking at many such countries. The standard of living has gone up, for example China now has a "middle class" of sorts.

Environmental concerns were not on the radar at the time, not 50 years ago, not like today.

The intentions were reasonably positive and well founded. Of course, I agree reassessment is necessary, and it really should always be.

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

#453

Post by EgregiousCube »

danaris wrote: post #446
EgregiousCube wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a wide gap between not wanting to be responsible for helping the poor and actively wanting the poor to fail. You're confusing the two.

You're right about the first part, but I'm not confused about anything. There are genuinely many people who wholeheartedly believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and that helping them is bad. Some of them aren't even that well off themselves, but have bought into an ideology that's detrimental to them. If you haven't encountered these people, then count yourself lucky, but don't try to deny their existence or assu…

Clearly people of every ilk exist, but my claim is that people like this are irrelevant to the debate around socialized healthcare. Show me an American politician who's run on the platform of openly wanting to hurt the poor because they deserve to be hurt, their electoral victory, and that person's vote against a socialized healthcare initiative. It's not a thing.

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

#454

Post by 83 »

henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

You use protectionism like it's a bad thing, but I'm sure the folks in the military industrial complex see what's going on in Ukraine and realise it wouldn't be a bad thing if the US had some domestic small drone manufacturing capabilities. Banning DJI could both encourage some of that manufacturing, while also stemming the flow of data to China.

We used to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly spy planes to map hostile countries - now a hostile country has a access to a huge number of drones providing live camera data. These drones are hard to track so the government doesn't always know if they've been flown near sensitive areas. It would be negligent of the government to not try to do something about it.

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

#455

Post by mauvehaus »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #288
kotaKat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add more as a NY21 local: I've never seen her. I've never heard from her locally. You can't fucking find Elise. It's all events in the past. There's never been a townhall up in this portion of her region. Bonus: Her husband is a lobbyist for a leading gun industry trade group. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-K...

Her husband has lobbied for NSSF… Why is that bad?

The complaint is typically about access. If you have a policy you'd like your rep to advance, you're stuck going through the same channels nearly everyone is: call, write a letter, etc.

If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her.

Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, or Alice Armalite?

To be clear, I don't think it's a good look for a politician to have personal ties that close with any lobbyist, even ones for the American Foundation for Fluffy and Adorable Kittens.

[0] Not real people, one suspects.

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

#456

Post by dheera »

TheChaplain wrote: post #328

I don't trust DJI. I was looking to replace my GoPro with the DJI Action, but their app was not on the Play-store. It can only be side-loaded on Android, because their app breaks a number of policies on privacy and data gathering. I believe I saw a site that decompiled their app and found a number of worrisome things.

I don't think "being in the Play store" means something is trustable, it just means you trust Google Play Services and Google with all of your data, and by extension, the US government.

Being located in the US, I am arguably far more concerned about the US government tracking me than the Chinese government. The US government has jurisdiction over me, the Chinese government does not.

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

#458

Post by stephen_g »

kuschku wrote: post #260
unethical_ban wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard offhand here that the ease of starting a business in general is easier in the US and that funding for tech startups is more available in the US due to policy. Totally hearsay from me.

Regulation isn't going to stop innovation that much, or the tech industry wouldn't be in california. The primary difference is that the US is one homogenous, huge market. If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in…

You’re discounting the fact that there’s plenty of internal movement in Europe - I worked with a French firm that had a bunch of Italians, some Swiss, an Englishman, two Spaniards and a bunch of Russians working there along with the French people, all living around and working in their Paris office.

It wouldn’t be that hard to find people to translate your app and provide support in the major languages in most large European cities.

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

#459

Post by acchow »

beloch wrote: post #247
henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

Speaking as a Canadian, U.S. trade protectionism is nothing new. It happens all the time and frequently targets allies like Canada rather than rivals like China. What U.S. citizens should watch out for is when U.S. protectionism winds up hurting the U.S.'s own economy. e.g. Tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber may have helped out a few U.S. softwood lumber producers with good lobbyists (and Jimmy Carter), but the incr…

A la "chicken tax" (A 25% tariff on light trucks)

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

#460

Post by vsuperpower2020 »

I'm not going to miss drones. Too many drone operators abused them to violate peoples expectation of quiet or privacy, or to harass animals, and were ignored or outright supported by other users. Laws restricting specific areas or behavior are extremely hard to enforce compared to an outright ban.

The most common defense was violating your privacy wasn't technically illegal. Well, now that it is going to become illegal, don't expect my support. This should serve as a reminder to people with niche hobbies not to make everyone hate you.

Post reply on HN