171–180 of 742 posts
This is so misguided it's breathtaking. Even if one buys into the supposed "harm" it's apparently trying to address, by targeting a specific corporate entity the proposed legislation won't do anything meaningful toward those ends. But it will confuse the market and hurt U.S. hobbyist consumers while being largely unenforceable anyway. It's one of those things that's just so dumb you assume it's only congressional ele…
Be thankful that consumer/hobbyist drones haven't been banned entirely already (banning other model aircraft along with them as collateral damage). Especially after all the footage of essentially-hobby-grade drones with familiar open-source flight controller software being turned into very effective weapons of war in Ukraine.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be thankful that consumer/hobbyist drones haven't been banned entirely already (banning other model aircraft along with them as collateral damage). Especially after all the footage of essentially-hobby-grade drones with familiar open-source flight controller software being turned into very effective weapons of war in Ukraine.
The bans are inevitable. It's only a matter of time before somebody tries to drop a pipe bomb on a politician.
Elise Stefanik can go fuck herself for all the reasons listed elsewhere, lets get that on the table.
BUT we should be thoughtful, if not worried, about DJI. Here's a couple of reasons:
1) When the original Mavic Pro was released I showed mine to someone who had worked in US intelligence. His jaw dropped and said that based on other stuff he'd heard in his circles and now marrying it up with the product in his hands, it was clear IP that had been stolen from US DOD contractors and the government itself was in this device.
2) We know that the CCP has influence over all Chinese companies. I worked for Uber when we were operating in China and saw first hand the influence and access Chinese government had over operations and data. ANYONE who claims otherwise hasn't had first hand experience or is a shill (there's a lot of those around - there's more Chinese intelligence activity in Silicon Valley than in DC. I encountered that at Uber too.)
3) The amount of tracking that DJI can do and send home to China is concerning. Sensors, GPS and of course camera footage. When we worry about companies like Huawei intruding into our infrastructure, it's still at the data layer. DJI represents exposure into the kinetic layer which opens up all kinds of further vectors of concern.
4) These are being used for war, for now for the most part "on our side" (Ukraine) but DJI is already trying to disable some of that and is picking sides. Next time it might not be our side that wins the advantage.
5) You can't legislate "for the bad stuff" that could happen, which a few other commenters have suggested. The "bad stuff" would be happening on Chinese servers in China. It's out of jurisdiction. You buy a Chinese product like this, you're agreeing to the terms of engagement occurring outside of your friendly US/European jurisdictions. When this happens the only thing a country can do is ban the import, and here we are...
I have not bought the more recent versions of the DJI drones as I'm very conflicted on using DJI products based on what I know and what I can see up the road. I would love to pay 20-50% more for similar products from a US/Western company. I'm fine with them being manufactured in China but I want the company and the servers and the software operated in friendly countries (just like Apple).
(also, the voting on this comment is fascinating - lots of upvote and then suddenly a ton of downvotes. There's either lot of pro-Chinese brigading here or something else going on. If you disagree with my points please reply instead)
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.
It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs. There are even many websites that don’t need the notices as they don’t use cookies for tracking a natural person (their cookies are not associated with personally identifiable information).
So we can choose what we use because we are informed.
Everyone in the comments seems to be against this: why? Let's build up a great domestic drone company here in the US.
1. Find a sector which a foreign companies dominates
2. Enter this sector even with a bad product
3. Go to congress and get the other ones banned because they are "insert reason here".