Pentagon Puts DJI on Blacklist
aljazeera.comThey are absolutely right to do this, and private users should be wary as well.
DJI's application (Mimo) has been banned from the Android Play Store for some time, with no explanation given by DJI. They offer an APK to side load, which is completely unsupervised, and requires access to your phone's accurate location and other invasive permissions no matter which of their products you are using.
This is an important detail. Your phone location might be helpful when using drones (though GPS should be on the drone, not your phone) but there is absolutely no reason to use it for something like a phone stabilizer, which it absolutely requires and will not let you continue unless you turn it on.
I did not reverse engineer their application but I will be surprised if there isn't a copious amount of data being sent to the back office.
You might not care as an individual, but then maybe ten years from now you will visit China, and they might know about you more than you're comfortable sharing.
As a side note, Aljazeera is comically ridiculous: https://imgur.com/a/HnbLy4O
I haven't been keeping up with the legislation updates, but the FAA's proposal for positional reporting required the drone to report the location of the drone and the pilot. It seems to still be their objective under "Why do we need RemoteID" https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/remote_id/drone_pilo...
>Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner...
To be clear, I don't support this implementation of RemoteID proposed by the FAA, and I don't like that the DJI app doesn't allow granular control over permissions. I fully support the Feds' efforts in sanctioning DJI. However, I think it's important that we level reasonable criticisms at DJI for behavior that they're capable of changing.
Some of DJIs drones are small enough that they wouldn't have to follow that rule (the pilot GPS requirement is only for drones that are required to be registered with the FAA, aka those heavier than 250g. DJI very intentionally has a line of drones that weigh something like 248g)
Yep, the Spark and the Mavic Mini series are all exempt from registration and RemoteID as they're 249g on the nose.
I'm just pointing out why the DJI app may need the capabilities that it does, but you're right, for many users who will never own a >250g DJI drone, that permission will never, ever be necessary.
This point came up in another comment, and it's definitely reasonable - but I still don't see why DJI would require your location when using products other than drones, which they do. And as I noted before, they are providing an app which has been axed from the official store. Aside from this, as I'm sure you're aware, any information that DJI collect has a nonzero chance of being handed over the the Chinese authorities for any reason whatsoever.
This is a fairly broad problem across the whole phone app world, isn't it? For example, I bought an iOS app for LAN analysis, but then deleted it when it turned out it wouldn't work unless you gave it access to your physical location (I assume that was for their data marketing side business).
Also, any data information collected by a US company also has 'a nonzero chance of being handed over to the American authorities for any reason whatsoever'.
The only real solution is data protection laws that can be enforced not just by governmental authorities, but also by individual and class-action lawsuits against companies that violate those laws.
> This is a fairly broad problem across the whole phone app world, isn't it? For example, I bought an iOS app for LAN analysis, but then deleted it when it turned out it wouldn't work unless you gave it access to your physical location (I assume that was for their data marketing side business).
I don't know how iOS works, but on Android location data permissions are requested for anything involving networking (including Bluetooth, WiFi). Why? Because access to those could be used to estimate where the user is physically located, so gating it behind the location permission is a good way to ensure nobody exploits that. It's not necessarily obvious when you're presented with the permission screen though.
If it's really a case of gating permissions, I still don't like it.
I used a few apps that utilize Bluetooth without asking for location, even when they aren't the obvious use case (like headphones), although admittedly it's been a while since then.
Afair, I don't recall the Mimo app asking me to turn on wifi for the stabilizer. But maybe yes and I just turned it off after connecting to the device. The operation of the stabilizer is through Bluetooth.
For the majority of smartphone's existence no permission was necessary, probably because no one ever considered it. Then it was learned stores, for example Target, were using their mobile app to broadcast Bluetooth signals in order to track shoppers movement around the store. So around 2019 Android added it to the general location permission to use Bluetooth for anything other than audio transmission to/from a paired device if device pairing is handled by the OS, hidden from the app.
In late 2021 Android changed it to a separate "ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION" permission, while Apple still keeps it under the general bluetooth permission (while the popup mentions it can be used to track your location).
> So around 2019 Android added it to the general location permission to use Bluetooth for anything other than audio transmission to/from a paired device if device pairing is handled by the OS, hidden from the app.
Stores don't need your permission or even their own app to be installed on your phone in order to use bluetooth to track people as they move around their stores. If you have bluetooth enabled on your device at all it can be used to track you.
The store just needs to place inexpensive low powered beacons around their store and they will record and log every device that passes within range.
I think the person you're responding to is misremembering the scandal. It was that Facebook, Google and similar (iirc it was mostly Facebook, Google were doing this with WiFi networks they had built an index of through Street View) would use Bluetooth on your phone to scan for nearby devices, and match them against known other devices and their location, thus deducing who you meet and where.
They even have a patent for that exact thing: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-phone-tracking-pate...
No. It was the Target app and it associated it to your Target Circle account.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/20/target-rolls-out-bluetooth...
But if they want to match it to your Target Circle account they need you to be using the app. Also iOS uses BLE address randomization to make tracking a specific individual more difficult. Having your app blast out a known ID bypasses this
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/20/target-rolls-out-bluetooth...
> This is a fairly broad problem
Permission greed is definitely an issue but it's still the choice of every developer, and there are still plenty of apps that do not do this. You were right to refuse using the app if you don't trust it.
> Handed over to the American authorities
At least on paper they need to have a reason, unless the corporation is very accommodating which also happens. But some companies are more strict about this and at least in theory accessing private information is not as easy in western countries. Or so I'd like to believe. I'm not sure in China you can tell the government official to come back when they have a warrant in a meaningful way.
> The only real solution is data protection laws
Sign me up! Unfortunately, the current state of things makes a lot of money for some parties, and legislators don't really have an incentive to do anything about this. However, it sends a very clear message when the Pentagon closes the door on some companies or when certain vendors like Huawei or ZTE are banned altogether.
> At least on paper they need to have a reason,
No they don't.
They need a reason to get a warrant. But if they simply buy the data from a broker, they don't need any reason at all, and there is utterly no oversight.
> Permission greed is definitely an issue but it's still the choice of every developer, and there are still plenty of apps that do not do this. You were right to refuse using the app if you don't trust it.
In fact, at least for Apple, their app store guidelines have, for a long time, prohibited apps from refusing to work without permissions. The app is supposed to gracefully degrade if the user does not consent to any particular permission. Their language seems to have softened[1] a bit since I last looked at it, but the intent is pretty clear: The developer can't just kill the app or prevent it from being used just because someone denied a permission.
> but then deleted it when it turned out it wouldn't work unless you gave it access to your physical location (I assume that was for their data marketing side business).
In order to use bluetooth or internet access through wireless means you must request location access because it's assumed that you can match a person's location with the access points and bluetooth devices around them (BL beacons). It sucks but Android is semi-right on it. Something that doesn't use wireless means of communication doesn't need location access.
That seems a bit broken. The permission to send data over the network should be distinct from the permission to know the name of the SSID.
iOS handles this differently - there is a distinct permission for accessing local networks and devices, and another for location. Within location, you can choose precise or vague.
Sort of off-topic complaint, but I wish Apple didn't make the Precise Location permission status viewable by apps. There's no reason they need to know if I'm obfuscating my location from them, and many apps look for this setting and refuse to work with Precise Location disabled.
For example the McDonald's app doesn't allow you to use coupons unless you enable the precise location permission.
Some of it comes down to whether the app should rely on that positional data... like for catching an uber or something.
I do think that's exploiting the ecosystem and I have a feeling one well placed complaint with Apple would cause a stern message to McDonald's... does the app tell you it's because of your location accuracy?
It specifically says to turn on Precise Location
For reference, you can click any deal and get a 6 letter code to use in-store at the counter or on their touchscreen ordering booths. But you can't see the code unless you give them precise location.
So android provides "coarse" or "precise" which maps to "wireless" or "gps" but the prompt tells you the app can get your location for either one.
That's just Google muddying the waters and claiming they respect user privacy, but then the phone asks for precise location every single time.
> I assume that was for their data marketing side business
You're confused: Their primary business is data marketing. LAN analysis or anything useful the apps might do are a side business at best.
If one wants to fly a drone in an unsafe manner they build a FPV drone themselves as opposed to buying an off the shelf regulated product with builtin geofencing.
> GPS might be helpful for drones (though it should be on the drone, not your phone) but there is absolutely no reason to use it for something like a phone stabilizer, which it absolutely requires and will not let you continue unless you turn it on.
It’s for the flight restriction system. Won’t let you fly near schools, power plants, airports etc.
This might not be the best way to go about it because what you care about in this scenario is the location of the drone, not the operator, who might stand outside the no flight zone. Which is another reason to use the drone's GPS signal in the app instead of your phone location.
Either way when using a drone they will know your location, but there's no reason to let DJI access this information when using every single product they make.
It might download a new restriction zone set based upon where the operator is. Without knowing anything about the internals of the drone, it would not be possible for the drone to have a full set of restricted areas for the planet. They change, get updated, etc…
For a drone, I understand the requirement. If you are using a drone, giving up your personal GPS location isn’t a big ask. You must be within sight line of your drone and the FAA may have a legitimate reason for knowing your personal location. (For most uses)
I don't see why a drone couldn't have a massive set of lat-long boundaries unless disk space or CPU is severely limited. Text doesn't take up much space.
The list of restricted airspaces is not static.
The drone can refuse to takeoff or fly into restricted space based just on its own GPS. It absolutely does not require to track the pilot.
But then how would they be able to sell your location data? It’s a crucial revenue stream! /s
They do sell a tool to police and governments that allow them to track drone operators. The Ukraine military uses drones extensively to monitor the Russians from the air and assist with artillery accuracy but any time they would launch a dji drone Russia had access to that software and would send an artillery shell to the pilots location.
Russians, like Ukrainians, and all other government forces in the world, have extensive experience triangulating transmitted signals in warzones. Considering that these drones rely on bidirectional communication, it is obvious where the pilot is without hacking DJI. A drone operator in a warzone appears like an active microwave oven with its door stuck open operating from a deserted area. Militaries can triangulate those signals for decades.
Exactly.
During WWII the already had radars enough to detect periscopes sticking out of sea surface from tens of miles.
They were also able to triangulate subs by their short transmits anywhere on the Atlantic with pinpoint precision.
People very much underestimate technical military capabilities.
The issues with militaries are of a different kind -- sifting through deluge of information, prioritising, making right inferences, etc., not the ability to spot and triangulate the enemy.
I think periscope detection is only possible since the 1970s
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N01/18-01-...The opportunity to detect periscopes was exploited in early radar experiments that prompted the development of the AN/APS-116 radar manufactured by Texas Instruments in the 1970s. The AN/APS-116 is an Xband, high-resolution, fast scanning system developed specifically to provide a periscope detection capability on the carrier-based S-3 aircraft. The AN/APS-137 is an upgrade of this radar used primarily on the S-3; a limited number are also used on the land-based P-3 aircraft.It has been possible since WWII, only not from tens of miles:
"During the early months of the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II, British ships using the radar set Model 271 were able to detect the periscope of a submerged submarine at a distance of 800 m (0.50 mi) during tests in 1940."
Not all DJI drones have a GPS.
On Android, anything that can broadcast a signal (bluetooth/wifi) require location, at least coarse.
I'm not saying DJI isn't spying on everything but that's probably the reason. This is hilarious in hindsight because for years, you had to give an app call access so they could monitor if a call was incoming (for pausing a game for example)
Edit: It also looks to be a GDPR ban.
>anything that can broadcast a signal (bluetooth/wifi)
it's the opposite - anything that can read a signal that has been broadcast by another deivce requires location permission. which makes sense, because if you can poll for nearby wifi networks or bluetooth beacons you can determine location, even without using the GPS hardware.
Yeah, makes sense from "not confusing users" perspective.
"This app only needs wifi network list, it isn't spying on me" would be easy mistake to make
so Android permissions actually separate coarse and precise but the prompt for location is the same whether you request one or the other.
> GPS might be helpful for drones (though it should be on the drone, not your phone)
Actually, for the new EU regulations, you need to broadcast both the position of the drone and of the operator, at least for everything above class C1 ("remote ID", see [1]).
And in any case, drones without working GPS are not fun to fly. DJI's Mini 3 Pro (and its larger friends) can do by using the collision-avoidance stereo cameras, but others I wouldn't dare risk running indoors.
While this is interesting (broadcast to whom exactly?) my main point is that DJI demands access to your smartphone location even for products that clearly have no use for this information, while giving you a sideloaded app which is banned from the official store. To me, these point to a trust issue.
> While this is interesting (broadcast to whom exactly?)
It's hard to find any information about how Remote-ID is supposed to work, but in theory the ID packets are sent by WiFi NAN and Bluetooth so that they can be received by anyone in the radio range (which is quite important for authorities to track down violators, e.g. people flying around hospital helipads). Unfortunately, current phones seem to lack support hardware-wise (see [1], page 6).
[1] https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/CEN-CENELEC/Events/Webinars/...
I'm not familiar with the EU side of things, but I am familiar with the FAA's regulations in the USA.
The FAA hasn't specified an implementation. It's on the manufacturer to come up with a means of compliance, and then get the FAA to sign off on it. There is a standard put out by the ASTM, which is heavily based on an open source project, OpenDroneID.
The standard moved away from NAN in the draft phase, in favor of vendor elements in 802.11 beacon frames. You can choose 802.11 or Bluetooth Low Energy. If you choose 802.11, 2.4ghz is required and 5ghz is recommended. If you choose BLE, v4 is required, and doing v5 as well is recommended.
>which is quite important for authorities to track down violators
no, it is not. it is yet another power grab by the FAA and federal authorities to increase the surveillance state.
I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work
> I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work
You're participating in airspace, and if you want to participate in airspace you have to comply with the rules for participation to not endanger others.
In ye olde times, you had to do a pilot exam, and planes and choppers were/are expensive and had to transmit ADS-B information both for air traffic security and for keeping track of abuse. If you were caught abusing your privileges, you lost your license.
Why should drones be exempt of these rules, particularly as they are mass-market things (unlike airplanes) and thus the chance of them getting abused is far higher?
None of that is true, there were always exemptions for Model Planes, Ultra Lights, etc.
Further this assume that I agreed with the "ye olde times" regulations, I dont. I largely disagree with all federal regulations for a multitude of reasons even going to the very basic that no where in the US Constitution is the FAA an authorized role of the federal government, at most it should be a state law not a federal law
While I initially balked at buying such spywares, I did break down and buy a Mini 2 last year(it's awesome!!!). I side-loaded the app on an old phone, sans SIM, with a pristine LOS install. Connected it to wifi to register & immediately put the phone in Airplane Mode.
Been meaning to research how to independently flash the drone's firmware offline to wipe collected data, but haven't delved into that yet. Any suggestions welcomed!
Wouldn’t the GPS on phone be primarily so that the drone knows where to go in case of emergency? I have also used a drone to follow me while on a bicycle or in a car…it seems like the phone would need GPS there as well.
Wondering if GPS on the drone would dramatically affect battery life as well?
> where to go in case of emergency
In case of emergency, drones just land where they are, or they could try to go back to the point of origin. Depending on the emergency, the drone might lose connection with the operator, in which case your own location is not very useful. I didn't run into emergencies lately but usually as far as I know the operator sets out to retrieve the drone.
> Wondering if GPS on the drone would dramatically affect battery life as well?
The vast majority of consumer drones already have GPS (on the device) today.
> have also used a drone to follow me while on a bicycle or in a car
It's more likely the drone follows you with computer vision although GPS could potentially help if the drone completely loses you. I imagine your phone location will be more helpful in pointing out the general direction than actually getting you in the center of the shot. It's not that accurate, and there are more variables at play like the vertical angle.
> In case of emergency, drones just land where they are, or they could try to go back to the point of origin. Depending on the emergency, the drone might lose connection with the operator, in which case your own location is not very useful. I didn't run into emergencies lately but usually as far as I know the operator sets out to retrieve the drone.
The default setting on connection loss is "return to home" with hover or land where you are as options. "Home" is a constantly updated location (sent from the controller to the drone) if you move, which, as another person mentioned, is absolutely critical in some scenarios like being on a boat where your position updates constantly.
As another person also mentioned, EU and FCC regulations will also require Remote ID, which broadcasts the drone's and operator's GPS positions. The latter is used if you did something bad and need to be spoken to.
Drone usage is somewhere where location is absolutely needed, especially for critical situations where you want your drone to not be lost forever (and so the government can slap you on the hand in person if you did something bad).
> or they could try to go back to the point of origin.
Great idea you if origin was on the boat.
I don't know why you all on the fence here, even I, who never used those drones, understand what first and foremost it is for the ability for the drone to return to the current/last known position of operator.
Yes, it could be used to send your location directly to CCP's secret service, but you can't have the GPS and eat^W don't have it too.
I think the drone landing where it is could be pretty catastrophic given that the drone really doesn't know what is below. Pilots routinely fly over large crowds, traffic, water, etc... and a drone with no controller just landing into one of those things is pretty dangerous. The drone doesn't necessarily need to have connection with the pilot at all times, but if it has a reference for the last point of contact, it can be helpful to guide it back to a known location.
Touche on the computer vision point!
I wonder if its actually for a dgps application.
Two GPS signals, two clocks, wireless signals being transmitted. You might be able to do a time differential offset/ correction to get a much higher accuracy relative position (drone and phone are very confident in their relative positions).
> GPS might be helpful for drones (though it should be on the drone, not your phone) but there is absolutely no reason to use it for something like a phone stabilizer
Wouldn't the app need GPS permissions just to show you where the drone is on a map, etc.?
No, it doesn't, since the drone will show you where the drone is. For your own location relative to the drone, it is though. You can do without, but just showing home (take off) location on the map is not ideal.
> Wouldn't the app need GPS permissions just to show you where the drone is on a map?
How so? The drone can send its own location. The app might show you your location on the map, but that's not mandatory for operating a drone. It is a good user experience, I admit, but you can operate drones without this.
And it doesn't explain why phone stabilizers require location access. Tried it myself with the OM 5.
fyi the aljazeera screenshot doesn’t show the dji article - just a cookie disclosure. Was the ‘ridiculous’ part in the article? Or their saying that the cookie gives “voice to the voiceless”. (Which is funny)
You can barely see the title behind the cookie popup and the "live" section, which is one of the worst examples I've seen for these annoying practices.
Thankfully Firefox on Android has the "reader mode" available right next to the url.
it's ridiculous that the propaganda arm of a totalitarian illiberal petrostate claims to "give a voice to the voiceless" or "promote truth and transparency". i also really dislike them because their "aj+" brand puts out heavily left biased faux-intellectual junk similar to vox or buzzfeed which makes me want to punch through a wall regardless of who puts it out.
It’s ridiculous that the cookie banner takes that much space. The site is pretty unusable like that.
That's the whole idea, that is should be if not a modal, then like a modal, to get a response from the user before proceeding with the site.
Nothing ridiculous about it (except the GDPR law itself). Many news websites do it even bigger, or hide the whole screen with a modal white overlay.
GDPR does not mandate huge banners for every use of cookies. Those banners are mandated because the website in question wants to share information gathered on you with, in the case of most news websites, hundreds of third parties in order to make a little bit more money from advertisers.
So pretty much the same as every other news site on the planet? I guess I'm not fully understanding why the OP is specifically calling out Al Jazeera here.
> As a side note, Aljazeera is comically ridiculous: https://imgur.com/a/HnbLy4O
You were not kidding. Wow.
> Aljazeera is comically ridiculous
Aljazeera is a model of journalism excellence and integrity!
Is this about their cookie warning? They’re obligated to say something.
If you don’t take their journalism seriously, you deceive yourself!
>Aljazeera is a model of journalism excellence and integrity!
There are really two versions of Aljazeera. The Western-facing one is pretty good (although it sometimes has Russia Today vibes on certain topics). The non-Western version is tabloid nonsense.
> Aljazeera is a model of journalism excellence and integrity!!!
I might have been able to respond to this proclamation if I could find their damn website under all the popups and consent modals.
Al Jazeera runs a ton of Qatari propaganda and their Arabic version is especially full of it.
>This is an important detail. Your phone location might be helpful when using drones (though GPS should be on the drone, not your phone)
I'd imagine it would be important for "come back home" like functionality in case drone loses signal or whatever
> but there is absolutely no reason to use it for something like a phone stabilizer, which it absolutely requires and will not let you continue unless you turn it on
App making photos or movies using GPS to tag location of the photo is kinda common. Refusing to work without it would be sketchy tho, but "developer is kinda incompetent" is common enough...
Not saying it isn't malicious but those are easier explanations.
Hell, it could require permissions and not send the data now, just add that tracking in update...
The "come back home" functionality relies on the GPS on the drone, but the "follow me while filming" needs the phone's. I saw quite a lot of motorcycling vlogs using that feature.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the follow me is visual.
I doubt the phone GPS would be accurate enough to keep you in frame - remember, if you were only using GPS for tracking like that, then you're getting both the error of the phone GPS as well as the error in the drone GPS.
I've only really seen it in action on a DJI mini 3 pro.
I believe you can do follow me from the controller without a phone involved at all.
definetly vision based
Now if there were any replacement for DJI I'd be happy... their tech stack is weird AF (e.g. you can only view synchronized flightbooks on your DJI RC controller or on the phone if you're using the sticks-only controller but not on the website or the macOS/Windows companion app, the damn expensive DJI RC controller doesn't do HDMI/DP output, the controllers can't be re-used between drone generations, DJI Fly is only available for sideload on Android ...).
The #2 used to be GoPro with its Karma drone which is one hell of a beast of a drone, but they exited the market when it became clear that neither the US nor EU had any idea what they were doing regarding drone regulations (to this day the EU hasn't managed to publish the licenseable Standard Scenarios, there is exactly one drone model on the market that is classified under the new EU schema that will become mandatory Q1/23, obtaining permissions by individual restricted zones such as fire departments is a hot mess because no one there knows what to do, countries like Croatia theoretically ban camera drones without a completely intransparent special permit process...).
Now, in the EU you're pretty much stuck with DJI if you want to fly in residential areas, hobby built drones and cheap China-made knockoffs that fall under the toy directive. For stuff such as gimbals, there are again virtually only DJI's Ronin series and cheap China-made knockoffs.
Seriously the EU and US need to step up and establish or at least fund companies that can compete with DJI and other sanctioned entities. It's ridiculous that people have to choose between funding CCP associated organizations or cheap knockoffs that are riddled with quality issues, software bugs and license issues.
DJI definitely got the jump on this market, and more annoyingly, they make pretty good products if not for the trust issues.
But nothing lasts forever.
Agreed, but my point is that without serious government funding and general intervention DJI are far too far ahead for European companies to catch up.
Drones have an extensive use in defense industries and just because the west produces less consumer models doesn't mean the tech isn't there. It will take banning DJI for them to quickly see they're not as far ahead as you imagine. It will probably cost more to buy though.
The thing is, consumer drones are widespread and generate a lot of data. Not just about the general performance of the drone or AI (like Tesla does), but also about weather conditions such as wind, or population densities that are classified by the drone's AI. All of this can be fed into massive data warehouses for later analysis - and the more drones one has, the better the quality of the derived data. In turn, that data can be used by the military for all sorts of planning and general intel collection.
Given that DJI has 76% of the market, the largest competitor (shockingly Intel - no idea they made drones?!) has 4% and the rest barely hits ~3%, it's safe to assume that no competitor comes even close to DJI [1].
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254982/global-market-sh...
Looks like Intel sold their Drone business...to Elon Musk's brother. Interesting development although it seems like they were focused on providing light shows. Explains why we are seeing these light shows at Tesla unveiling events ha!
What the fuck, turns out to be true [1].
[1] https://dronedj.com/2022/07/06/intel-drone-light-show-musk/
There are competitors in EU and US: Skydio and Parrot are the first I can think of, although their products cost more and aren't as consumer focused.
Looks like parrot doesn't sell anafi anymore (only anafi ai which seems to be focused on enterprisey stuff), and skydio, while looking nice, is not foldable. So if you want compact photo/video quad for trips, your choice is pretty limited. Especially if you want to stay below 250g weight. There is Autel Robotics which produces quads similar to DJI, but it's also mainland China company.
There many companies that make drones outside of China. The question about replacement was more about "as good" drones...
“ Seriously the EU and US need to step up and establish or at least fund companies that can compete with DJI and other sanctioned entities.”
Establishing legible regulations, yes - but why should taxpayers fund drone companies? What is the public benefit in doing so?
> What is the public benefit in doing so?
At the moment, DJI's R&D is likely heavily subsidized by Chinese military funds. The result of that is that DJI can offer its products vastly cheaper than domestic (or allied nations') companies can.
Therefore, the public benefit of subsidies, tariffs and sanctions would be:
- not assisting China's military development by providing funds (from drone sales) and operational data from the drones. Even the flight logs provide immense amounts of real world data about the environment and the behavior - e.g. the Mini 3 Pro's camera based object tracking. That's crazy good AI at work there, gotta admit that.
- providing domestic and allied nations' companies with the opportunity to do business without being subject to Chinese price dumping, thus keeping wealth inside the allied space and outside of the CCPs cash reserves
- consumers have their privacy rights respected
>consumers have their privacy rights respected
Haha, no.
The public is already funding drone research, but it's all in defense and military.
For the same reasons taxpayers fund semiconductor fabs (CHIPS Act): local supply chains for critical infrastructure.
In an ideal world it would fund a non-profit to develop open source software and hardware for the good of all.
In reality it will just end up funding a contractor with good lobbyists.
Taxpayers already fund them in the form of military spending. Now we need to encourage companies to trickle their decade old tech into the consumer space.
The thing is companies in the EU can't use slave workers and there is no access to cheap resources that are mined without regulations and so on. But, big corporations are allowed to sidestep that by manufacturing in countries that don't care about that and so having huge competitive advantage over potential European manufacturers.
For some reason the EU is not seeking level playing field with China.
Opening tax payer funding for corporations willing to manufacture in the EU is an open season for corruption and display of hypocrisy.
>The thing is companies in the EU can't use slave workers and there is no access to cheap resources that are mined without regulations and so on
Sure they can. In the 1940s they did it to several million people (a large part Jews). Up until the mid-20th century they stole resources and took advantage of human capital directly in occupied lands ("colonies"). Now they do it through outsourcing work to sweatshops, child mines, and such, in Asia, Africa, and so on. They also do whatever they can to keep those "unregulated mines" and cheap resources flowing, by by the traditional way of meddling in their ex-colonies, toppling governments, and so on.
Autel is “on par” - better in some areas and lacking in others. They’re a Chinese company, though some of their higher-end stuff is assembled in the US. They don’t “phone home” like DJI and don’t restrict flight based on geolocation in the US.
> They don’t “phone home” like DJI and don’t restrict flight based on geolocation in the US.
The latter is actually a requirement in the EU starting Q1/23, simply because there have been way too many people without any clue about drone regulations causing danger to general and emergency aviation. It's a good idea when manufacturers step up to prevent their products from causing harm to others.
Disappointed that grassroots drone companies such as 3DR died as a result of aggressive Chinese companies such as DJI pushing good quality drones for less. Now the US market has lesser alternatives and we’re having to go back to hobby kits to build anything similar to a DJI.
3DR was great, quality products and software.
fr i don't think it's a coincidence that our market has been flooded by software-controlled chinesium. not to get too tinfoil-hatty but it makes sense from the chinese perspective.
We did that shit to ourselves with our offshoring and MBA bullshit. China just took advantage of it like any superpower would. America's commercial greed is what will cause it's downfall to China, if anything. Not that I even ascribe to the idea that China and the US should even be enemies, that's just more "red scare" BS.
China have a "Made-in-China" plan, one of its goal is good old control of means of production. Is there something like that in the US?
Yea, the trillions we spent being the world police for decades, our political push for oil to be priced in usd, etc.
The petrodollar/dollarization of the global economic. Also global naval hegemony. Who do you think polices all the world's trade routes?
It's not quite so clear anymore, e.g. Black Sea
I wonder why they didn't this year? Freedom of navigation exercises are like bread and butter for US Navy sailors! It's one of the very few things I think are important for the US military to continue, even if we draw-down from being the world police.
https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-ships-stay-home-nato-flexes-bla...
What's not software-controlled these days? DJI has better products, consumers buys DJI, DJI is Chinese, consumer end-up with Chinese software, what's your point?
See also smart home sensors
Do other countries put US hardware and software companies on blacklists for their involvement with DoD? If so, then I think quite a few major US tech companies would be unable to do business outside the US and Europe.
I guess you have not been following the various EU rulings that say that EU citizen data must not flow to U.S. companies because it could be collected by U.S. intelligence services. “Google Analytics Ruled Illegal” would be a typical headline.
That is considerably different from blacklisting an entire company.
China puts most US software on a blacklist by default.
They probably would if they aren't allies with trade agreements. But they are, and I think you know this already.
They would if the US wasn't more powerful than them, and didn't have them in their pocket.
The US has ITAR. If you have certain government contracts you are prohibited from selling products or providing access to certain foreign nations (blacklists), or a complete export blanket ban.
For instance, I recently started investing in an excitingly expensive hobby, night vision. The tubes in those things are so heavily restricted that I cannot even let a foreign national touch them, technically. Which makes it interesting considering my girlfriend is a Tunisian foreign national here on a work visa, so technically I cannot show her my cool new toys I spent thousands of dollars on.
> I cannot show her my cool new toys
My partner would be happy if I could not tell her or show her the cool stuff I work on :P.
China has just about banned any foreign software services?
They can't ban the hardware, of course. While in the US finding a Chinese part in military hardware is a reason to stop the line, they rely extensively on US parts.
We got some recent movements in trying to basically say "if it's US company it doesn't comply by GDPR", because US laws require companies to snitch on demand
Every country on earth requires companies to listen to legal warrants.
That's a damn shame because DJI drones are years ahead of every open source project I've used: iNav, Beta/Butter/CleanFlight, PX4*, Ardupilot... Nothing compares to the stability and ease of use of consumer DJI drones. I mean, eventually another company will get there, but not right now.
(*PX4 on Hawk and Cube FCs is the best experience I've had.)
The Ukrainian-Russo war has shown the military the power of offensive drones. You think they are going to allow civilians to own such powerful potential weapons in the future? I think offensive drone warfare is just scratching the surface. I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.
Some of the drones used by Ukraine have pretty wild so far, one ive seen rarely mentioned is this unknown larger drone that drops 10 grenades at a time, carpet bombing an area.
I imagine the ukranian weapons industry will make a killing post war. Some of their tools are impressive mvps that have a proven product market fit.
I saw a large one with eight rotors and two! anti-tank launchers strapped to it.
Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.
But the obvious difference is that binoculars were not sold with citizen from the other country attached who would stand near and occasionally would peer through and also report to office worker exact position of the binoculars owner AND also recite content of his personal notebook. Quite difference isn't it?
AFAIK, soldiers flash a custom firmware on these drones before they are deployed to the battlefield. I imagine it has phoning home and tracking features removed.
It's not like the battlefield will have reliable wi-fi/4g coverage anyway.
Assault Rifles seem to be ok for the US government to place into the hands of US civilians.
Agree. But I think the idea of flying a bomb into someone's car (the first thing that came to mind when I thought about it for a few seconds) is, to the powerful, a whole 'nother level of terror.
Not to be so cynical/dark, but I'm surprised to have not yet heard of a targeted assassination done by an amateur with an off-the-shelf drone. I have to admit the idea is frightening.
Remember the D.C. Sniper attacks?
Not sure if grenades are as available to the public as bullets and if I remember correctly bombs are illegal to make.
> bombs are illegal to make
Tell that to Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers and that guy that brought pipe bombs to the January 6th insurrection.
You have it backwards: the U.S. government is explicitly prohibited constitutionally from infringing the human right to bear arms.
That's why everyone can buy sell and own nukes!
Seems tactical nukes that can be fired by a single individual may constitutionally be held. Firing them appears extremely illegal, owning them is likely subject to physical monitoring, and motorized missile launchers and such are regulated by state regulations under the Tenth.
^^^ this comment was posted by someone who does not know what an assault rifle is. it is very difficult and expensive to get ahold of a assault rifle these days and has been for almost 40 years.
though yeah i think we should repeal that law, there is nothing wrong with civilians owning assault rifles. the federal government is literally not allowed to pass or enforce laws against this because it clearly infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms. we can only hope some time in the next few years the NFA, GCA and FOPA are struck down, along with all the asinine regulation that has forced so many small gun manufacturers out of business, increased gun prices for American consumers and retarded innovation in civilian small arms.
Yep - TBF, I have no idea really.
I just see what I see on the news out of the US with headlines such as:
"Student arrested in Texas after walking to school with assault rifle just one day after tragic Uvalde shooting"
So it's understandable the world believes that Assault Rifles are purchasable by civilians in the US.
Yes same for tactical nukes
I hate this argument because it's fucking stupid. I think we can draw a clear and logical line between "gun" and "doomsday device".
I think it's a lot more stupid to assume that laws put in place to allow for single fire muskets that took significant amounts of time to load and fire should automatically equally apply to machine guns.
We should be able to draw a clear and logical line between the kinds of guns the people who wrote the constitution envisioned the American people owning and the kinds of guns we have today, but obviously not everyone agrees with that. They all agree there is a difference and that lines exist, but feel that they should just be ignored.
single fire muskets... or fucking warships and cannon.
Which... couldn't ever be purchased by an 18 year old at Walmart after a month of saving up? And which were tracked in both their ownership and their movements anywhere near coastlines? And which, when used in criminal acts, were requisitioned (an irrecoverable financial hit) and the operators executed or imprisoned for life?
Yeah, there’s a line somewhere obviously, but it’s also not defined by “is it an arm? Okay then you have a right to bear it!”
As technology advances, either we have to be comfortable with more and more destructive devices being in the hands of everyday people, or we have to be comfortable with restricting access to more and more devices that qualify as “arms.”
Legalize recreational nukes
legalize nuclear bombs... bees make honey
Please let me know how to buy one, they are forbidden since 1936 with very few exceptions and astronomic prices.
They're certainly an optimal delivery device for biological and chemical weapons, and I imagine it's only a matter of time before such programs are revived by various powers, given the current breakdown in international treaty regimes governing what I'd call the four horsepeople of the apocalypse: nuclear, chemical, biological and cyber warfare.
How are they more optimal than the "traditional" (for the last few decades) method, a missile? Missiles have the advantages of bigger range, faster, different profiles (hypersonic cruise, ICBM). A drone might be harder to detect today, maybe, because anti-air systems didn't need to deal with them (while they did have to deal with missiles, so are optimised for that use case), but that's about it?
Availability is much higher, so that opens the door to use by non-state actors. Stealth is probably also higher. I suppose the combination, i.e. missiles delivering cluster-type munitions (releasing hundreds of drones instead of hundreds of bomblets) is what state-level militaries would pursue.
Little-known fact: cluster munitions (essentially, hot-water-heater-size cylinders packed with hundreds of small devices) were originally developed for the dispersal of chemical and biological warfare munitions over wide areas.
I know you were talking about conventional warfare, but unless your apocalypse-causing list includes inflation upfront, it's not complete.
The past thirty years of offensive drones has shown the military power offensive drones. The US fields drones from the size of passenger aircraft to tiny little palm sized ones. It's also been firing missiles from them for decades now.
Drones in warfare are not new at all. Even the use of commercial drones is not new.
There is nothing to allow. The cat is already out of the bag. Best you can hope for is regulation, which is what FAA is attempting to do and mitigation ( some companies have ideas on how to counter 'bad' drones ). In a sense, it is no different than it was before. People can still drive cars. People can still use RC toys. And people will do all sorts of horrible things will all manner of technology.
<< I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.
I don't know this, but I suspect we are only seeing some rather selective footage ( as with most warfare propaganda ). Just thinking what one could do with coordinating drones makes me shiver a little.
Still, as a species we are oddly adaptable. Here is to hope permanent drone sky will not become our new normal.
While I dislike DJI drones for theirs low hackability, I feel this is no sense as DJI's products are really very much civilian. And China do not ban iPhones or Windows because they are leaking a order of magnitude more Chinese bits (location services and telemetry) to the US controlled entities.
Honest question: is there any competent alternative to DJI drones? Better to be more hackable. DIY a drone with open source flight control boards is not hard (for me), but optimizing for battery life and having a good video downlink seems hard.
I've been looking for a non-DJI drone with a Swift SDK for a while. Does this exist?
Parrot (French) drone company, I think had some Swift dev work.
side question.
anyone know if DJI drone use prolific within China? How does China regulate their own drones?
I'm uncomfortable with kneecapping every successful Chinese technology company. "US tech good, China tech bad" doesn't make sense to me.
China kneecaps all US companies inside of China. Most US companies are banned outright, and the ones that are allowed to operate inside the country are forced to be majority owned by a Chinese entity.
So are we better than them, or not?
What does that even mean? Do we have the moral high ground letting a foreign corporation make money from our citizens and send the profits back to that country with no reciprocity? Which moral framework says that that is good?
The moral framework that says, "Leave it to the consumer to decide what to do with their money."
You know. Capitalism.
It makes perfect sense to me why the US Government would take that stance. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense. Even if a US based company is tracking user location or audio or whatever privacy concerns, a couple letters with a government stamp on it can get the US Gov complete access to all that data. That's not the case for Chinese tech, and the Chinese government can do the same trick of gobbling up all that available data from companies in their jurisdiction.
Or I guess to put it another way, if you're dragnetting basically all possible user data from your citizens and non-citizens, wouldn't you assume "competing" countries are doing the same thing?
Maybe China should stop kneecapping their own tech by injecting backdoors, layering hidden circuitry into motherboards, and harvesting US and EU user data for whateverthefuck their end goal is.
I mean, I get it, "poor put-upon China!", but let's be honest here: China needs to stop fucking around, lest they find out.
Are you referring to the debunked Bloomberg story about magical backdoors in chips?
No. He's referring to the anti-China propaganda he's been consuming.
please look into https://www.parrot.com/us for dji alternative
I've used Parrot's ANAFI drone, actually thanks to the DoD blacklisting our DJI drones, and found it didn't measure up. It flies slowly, doesn't stationkeep in winds as well, is more prone to overheating, takes longer to boot, and other issues.
As another poster recommends, I'd suggest looking at Skydio.
I've heard fantastic things about Skydio too https://www.skydio.com/
Those look like higher end commercial-use drones.
I use a 5 year old app on an airgapped device along with old firmware on my drones for precisely this reason. It has no nanny features and allows me to be responsible for my own actions without surveillance.
With that said - yes, my drone is registered.
Is there any non CCP replacement for their DJI Pocket2 camera?
Pardon my ignorance, but is there any reason why a GoPro (Max) or Insta360 is not sufficient?
Mostly the physical picture stabilization and the better form factor, where the bulky part of the cam is the handle to hold it.
Ok, that makes sense. Most other options will be bulkier indeed.
Isn't Insta360 Chinese too? GoPro is/was manufactured in China as well.
"Manufactured in China" (a.k.a. "everything") and "designed, built and controlled by a Chinese Party affiliate" seem to be very different. There is some risk in "manufactured in China" too, but orders of magnitude lower.
From what I heard early GoPro cameras were designed in China as well, they were off the shelf devices rebranded. Only later did GoPro start doing in house camera design.
Buy Skydio drones instead, they are made in USA.
They can only fly in the US. I am in Europe and I can't fly my Skydio - and they didn't mentioned it in clear terms.
How did they stop you? There is no mention of this on their website: https://support.skydio.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000935174-Wh...
This is the only thing I found to try to be able to fix the issue. You can guess it's a lot of work, and not for your average user: [0].
[0]: https://skydiopilots.com/threads/no-wifi-ssid-connection-for...
Why not?
How does this impact Osmo Action cameras? I don't have one, but I guess it has some phone app (like all do), while still being able to function completely offline. Any information on this?
Stupid question, but this would be relevant for the market: if people can't buy DJI drones in the US, which drones would they buy? Recreational, sports, or industrial use.
You can still buy DJI drones. It's only that the military can't anymore
i'm honestly surprised dji never moved to singapore when basically all their revenue comes from the US consumer drone market.
Only if they could?
Doing business in China ain't as independent as you think, am afraid.
Haven’t been keeping up with this - have regular people been affected negatively by the privacy issue, ccp etc?
It's hard to say. That's the problem with privacy violations. If a store charges you more than the next person for the same item they aren't going to tell you that it's because of data they bought from some third party and there's no telling where that third party got your data from or how accurate it is.
If someone goes to china and they get disappeared the Chinese government isn't going to tell anyone that they were taken let alone that it was because of data they got by surveillance of their mobile device.