No More DJI drones? Your thoughts?

[FlyingClayDisk]

Not sure how many people have been following this, but the House has sent a bill to the Senate which would bar new DJI drones from being allowed to fly in the US.  The government alleges DJI (the drone manufacturer) is linked to the Chinese military and is using the technology to secretly spy on the US and its citizens.  The bill calls for DJI to be placed on a list which would, among other things, make it illegal for businesses in the US to do business with DJI citing national security risks.  (link to one such article of the latest status below).

I personally see this as a veiled attempt by the US government to significantly restrict the use of drones in the US, period.  Once they get DJI on the list (DJI manufactures roughly 70% of all drones in the US) it will only be a matter of time before they ban all drone companies as the vast majority of drones are manufactured in China.

What do you think?

DJI sues Pentagon over ban

[UltraBudgie]

My guess is that the GPS/vidcap tech in the equipment DJI is making is either implementationally modular --  loosely couple via an insecure bus -- or doesn't have a sufficient secure substrate with common access to support guaranteeing that it will operationally meet national security requirements.  The desired embeds likely add camera operational modulation via GPS keying, as well as, for higher resolutions and advanced lensing, data acquisition stream filtering via content analysis implemented in onboard FPGA fabric.  As with similar challenges in cars, phones, and printers, it's up to the manufacturer to ensure supply and manufacturing chain conformance, and some of these smaller fly-by-night outfits don't cut it, especially when other countries cut corners and don't separate their mil and civ tech as efficiently as we do.

[FlyingClayDisk]

My guess is that the GPS/vidcap tech in the equipment DJI is making is either implementationally modular --  loosely couple via an insecure bus -- or doesn't have a sufficient secure substrate with common access to support guaranteeing that it will operationally meet national security requirements.  The desired embeds likely add camera operational modulation via GPS keying, as well as, for higher resolutions and advanced lensing, data acquisition stream filtering via content analysis implemented in onboard FPGA fabric.  As with similar challenges in cars, phones, and printers, it's up to the manufacturer to ensure supply and manufacturing chain conformance, and some of these smaller fly-by-night outfits don't cut it, especially when other countries cut corners and don't separate their mil and civ tech as efficiently as we do.

Great reply and agreed.  However, I suspect there's more going on than just this, on the policy side of things.  What you point out (and I agree) is fairly easily fixed and, given the market for drones at present, I'm confident that manufacturers will correct these issues in short order.  They're not overly expensive to work solutions for.  But I'm betting that's not going to be enough.  In other words, regulatory agencies will find another, or deeper, reasons to prohibit them.  And, that's really the fundamental question I am posing in the OP...is this just a ruse for a larger concern for drones in general.

As you probably know, I work in aviation.  Personal drones are practically like 'satan' in aviation; they are not well liked at all and there are many who wish they would be outlawed completely.  I am not among that crowd!  And, I don't think they pose nearly the risk that some suggest they do; I think much of it is exaggerated or imagined.  Do they cause damage?  Absolutely, and very expensive damage too, but they're not going to bring an airliner down.  They might frag a motor (worst case) and that's about it, but so too will a bird...and I don't think we're going to be outlawing birds anytime soon (but anything is possible with the stupid government these days).  So, I see it as a deeper issue.

Drones are pretty handy at seeing things that other people want to keep out of sight, and I believe this is the real underpinning reason here.  Heck, I can even remember back when I was just a kid; I used to have model rockets (back in the late 60's and early 70's).  Estes (the company) came out with this thing they called the 'Cam-Roc' which was basically a camera you could mount on your rocket to take aerial photos.  I wanted one really bad (but never got one).  Point is, even back then there were concerns about losing control of what could be photographed from the air (and by 'control' I mean regulatory 'control').

It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to visualize all the things in which drone footage might create uncomfortable public relations issues for authorities (much like cell phone cameras already do).  Just look into the fine print of almost any public event, and you will inevitably find some language prohibiting the use of drones.  If you dig into this, 'public safety' is always cited as the reason why, but we all know that's only part of the reason why (and it's also a convenient excuse / ruse).  The real underpinning reason is having a birdseye view of things really changes the complexion of what "really" happened.  Sure, helicopters can provide the same, but helos are expensive and heavily regulated.  Drones, not so much.  Thus the attempts at regulating drones much more heavily...IMO.

[ArMaP]

I just saw a news title saying DJI is suing the US Defense Department.

[FlyingClayDisk]

I just saw a news title saying DJI is suing the US Defense Department.

That was the article I linked in the OP.  So, yes.

And I think they should sue the DOD too, especially if they can prove the allegations are untrue (which I believe, for the most part, they are).

Like many things, there's a much easier solution to this problem.  In this particular case, it would be much easier just to prohibit edge ISP's from linking to known Chinese military IP's.  Problem solved...and not just for drones either; solves a number of other similar allegations.  Once again, the government goes after the completely wrong thing; they go after the tool, not the source of the problem.

[Maxmars]

I would ask whether the manufacturer in question represents a lions share of the market.  I'm not proposing that it is so, but the move against DJI might be as simple as an act of consumer protection, if not national security.  Setting up a potentially foreign network of devices is something that does present some tangible risks. 

For the sake of argument:  DJI doesn't sound to me like a "vital and thriving" part of the drone market and user base here in America.  It's not like they are the Ford or Chevy of the drone world. 

That their products have been flagged as pertaining to the "unavoidable data stream to China" group (like video door bells, personal 'assistants,' "digital" toothbrushes, etc.) is a problem for the product designers and engineers to resolve - rather than hide (or simply not mention.)

I don't think it necessarily represents an assault on personal drone operation overall... but that's not an absolute... who knows how US manufacturing lobbies approach the subject behind closed doors... How "anti-China" paranoia and bias might influence legislators and CEOs... how market share competition might create 'threat imagery' for the game of commerce.

It always seemed that the whole idea of surreptitiously streaming device data "back to the China" is something each user should be both advised of formally and completely, as well as be able to control or refuse as a matter of owner/operator rights.

Overall this capability and practice is happening now in too many devices on the market... drones notwithstanding.

[ArMaP]

That was the article I linked in the OP.  So, yes.

Sorry, I forgot to say that it was in Portuguese media, so it looks like the media around the world is picking this up.

[guyfriday]

DJI does make some great drones, but it wasn't that long ago when people were making their own drones (Especially for racing). So, I don't see this move as a hinderance to drones just a hit to people that use Drones as spy tools. DJI does seem to be the drone of choice for people wanting to misuse them.

As for clamping down on drone use, that damn bill from a few years ago did more to limit drone use than anything else.

[FlyingClayDisk]

Maxmars & Guyfriday,

While I agree with the basic theme of both of your posts (and they are similar, thus the combined response), I think you may be missing a key element of my point.

No, the drone world will not keel over dead without DJI.  Equally, DJI (the company) manufactures very little of the drone itself.  They engineered it, and they assembled it, but most of the parts for DJI drones, as with virtually all other drones, comes from components made in Asia (specifically China), but not by DJI specifically.  And, this is kind of the point...this isn't a DJI issue, which is why it's an "issue" here (in the OP).  These components are in virtually all drones...even military ones.  In particular, the printed circuits for the GPS tracking systems, and the gyro stabilization systems, which are critical to stable flight, are manufactured overseas.  These are the parts being targeted.  So, why DJI then, right?

Well, that's a good question.  Part of the answer is contained in how much market share DJI commands, the lion's share.  Yes, private parties do build their own drones, BUT they're using the same parts DJI is using.  This is why the action against DJI in particular makes no sense.  I'm not defending DJI here; I could care less about them.  But what I am arguing for is stopping this nonsense.  Yes, you can find 100 varieties of drones on Amazon, AliEx, Temu and more for way cheaper.  And...they all suck badly.  DJI drones are much better quality, much more stable and use much better gear...this is why they're being targeted...because they actually "work" (unlike the other garbage).

The point here isn't DJI.  Yes, DJI is big enough to stand up and say something about it, and now they are.  The more central issue is the drone component technology, which is hundreds of companies.  This move on DJI was just an effort to take down the big guy first.  The rest of the players will be easy to take down after the precedent is set with the market leader, the guy who builds the best of the best drones for both amateur and professional users.

See the point now?

[UltraBudgie]

panda got some chonk goin when ya pronebone her:




Edit: Sorry, that was a might vulgar. This is the DJI Mini 2.