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

501–510 of 742 posts

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

#501

Post by kragen »

chme wrote: post #308
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...

Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed. While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requi…

i agree, but we shouldn't require all firmware to be open-source and user-replaceable on only chinese devices; we should require it for everything, perhaps with narrow exceptions for things like pos terminals and certain kinds of industrial equipment

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

#502

Post by kragen »

jpgvm wrote: post #388
chme wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed. While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requi…

> direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work Unfortunately this is required by regulators in many countries. In Thailand you can't fly a drone without a license. You need to obtain the license before activating the drone and provide your information and the license number at time of activation (which is tied to drone serial number). It sucks but it's the law here.

shitty laws in thailand are no excuse for human rights infringements in the other 99% of the world

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

#503

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

euroderf wrote: post #490
chme wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed. While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requi…

I would like to see a requirement that any drone sold in (or imported to) the US (or EU) has to be flashable - without having to desolder components, or any other such nonsense. Press some buttons and load new software. An accompanying requirement would be to document interfaces to hardware subsystems (chip spec sheets would suffice). With drones, the potential for mischief is too great to let malware be smuggled in.…

Impossible, especially for drones, because it would allow people to trivially flash firmware to drones which can bypass restrictions like no-fly zones and reporting requirements which allow the FAA or other LE to answer questions like "who was flying a drone playing chicken with a low-flying Cessna"

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

#504

Post by redserk »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #435
dji4321234 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It can only be side-loaded on Android, because their app breaks a number of policies on privacy and data gathering. I don't think this is the reason, I think it's more that they're just too lazy to jump through the approval and maintenance hoops that come with an app store, especially because their home market (China) doesn't even use the Play Store. The iOS version of their app is Apple-approved and present in the…

>I don't think they're explicitly a CCP data-collection front In China you cannot not be explicitly a CCP data-collection front. China doesn't bring evidence to a judge in order to get a subpoena for data. They just go to DJI an get it. DJI has zero legal recourse if the CCP wants access to all DJI's stored data. Doesn't matter where that data is stored. Same thing for tiktok and why legislators are killing that too.…

To start: I do not trust the CCP, but my trust in the American legal system has been waning.

What's the legal recourse for a US Citizen served with a dodgy FISA-related subpoena/warrant?

Or if a government agency wants to purchase tracking data that includes my phone from a data collection agency? Say the state of Texas purchases geotracking data for app users who cross state lines.

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

#505

Post by sangnoir »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #453
danaris wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regan's "welfare queen" comes to mind. More recent examples were those against stimulus checks (but very much for PPP "loans"). Any politician who believes in means-testing, when the bureaucracy adds an overhead greater than the amount saved is arguably out to hurt the undeserving.

You can't deny the politics of retribution exists, because politicians only give oblique references to it; voters certainly believe it, hence one voter who complained about Covid shutdowns thusly: "He's not hurting the people he needs to be"

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

#506

Post by sbarre »

Lisdexamfeta wrote: post #422
sbarre wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets. So like Boeing, Intel, Lockheed-Martin, GE, IBM, etc.. That's nothing new, just 50-100 years behind the west...

As you well know the scale and effort to dominate external consumer markets is nothing similar.

Are you saying these US industries and companies have not dominated external markets?

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

#507

Post by FactKnower69 »

andrepd wrote: post #470
Workaccount2 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think they're explicitly a CCP data-collection front In China you cannot not be explicitly a CCP data-collection front. China doesn't bring evidence to a judge in order to get a subpoena for data. They just go to DJI an get it. DJI has zero legal recourse if the CCP wants access to all DJI's stored data. Doesn't matter where that data is stored. Same thing for tiktok and why legislators are killing that too.…

Ahaha, as opposed to the US where... 3-letter agencies don't bring evidence to a judge, they just go to google/meta to get it.

Pointing out obvious bad-faith hypocrisy is actually called "whataboutism", you're doing a hecking fallacy!!

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

#508

Post by FredPret »

kredd wrote: post #466
FredPret wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Struggling to understand in which context the US is the weaker partner. - GDP [0] - Total wealth [1] - Military - Demographics (US - growing, China - aging and shrinking) - Soft power [0] https://tradingeconomics.com/ [1] [ https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/glo... ]

Manufacturing capability and infrastructure would be my guess. I guess if the trend continues and factories keep moving to India and Mexico, it might be a different game in 10 years.

Also automation might have a huge effect on this. It's expensive and slow to ship things all over the place.

We're not seeing that trend take off in a major way yet, but I think a lot of the raw ingredients are there.

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/12/manufacturing-is-gro...

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

#509

Post by FactKnower69 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #412
mike_d wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account This whataboutism ignores one very important point. When you connect a device to an American company they might do things that we consider privacy violations, while still staying generally within the bounds of the law. We like to joke about data going to the NSA or something, but in the extre…

The idea of running any internet-connected software with a push-update mechanism, built and controlled by a company in a country without a strong independent rule of law, should terrify far more people than it apparently does. This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.

>a country without a strong independent rule of law

I'd really like you to try and define this term in a way that doesn't exclude the US

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

#510

Post by ethbr1 »

FactKnower69 wrote: post #509
ethbr1 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of running any internet-connected software with a push-update mechanism, built and controlled by a company in a country without a strong independent rule of law, should terrify far more people than it apparently does. This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.

>a country without a strong independent rule of law I'd really like you to try and define this term in a way that doesn't exclude the US

If anyone wants to point to US FISA laws and use that to equate the US justice system with China's, I'm all ears...
Post reply on HN