Drone firm DJI promises 'local data mode' to fend off US government's mooted ban
theregister.com
theregister.com
DJI can pay for all the audits in the world, if they are not trustworthy they can find a way to spy in spite of the audit. Computer and software systems are just too complex to declare clean with audits.
This is a trust problem that DJI simply cannot change in their present state.
Or run a public version inside a black box and monitor all traffic.
DJI, Apple, Huawei, Google etc are all in a similar boat where the governments they operate under have publicly and privately pressured them to use their profitable platforms for spying or gathering evidence. This reduces their profitablity as consumers have less confidence the product isn't working against them.
But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook. And instead of saying it is primarily economic protectionism they make it a defense issue to try and tamp demand.
In the end the best thing for consumers is if Apple, DJI, etc compete on having privacy preservation and feel compelled to make their products resistant to government influence.
So this new DJI feature is a good thing for consumers it seems.
Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed.
American brands are everywhere in China, from Teslas, to iPhones, to McDonalds, to Starbucks, to the NBA, to the list goes on and on and on. Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year.
Calling that a closed market is... Not at all accurate. It's by no means a fully[1] open market, but it's not a closed one.
[1] The definition of fully also varies from country to country. Is Canada a fully open market? No. For example, there's a lot of government protectionism surrounding media, and media infrastructure. Is the US a fully open market? No - again, not in the case of media infrastructure. Neither is an open market when it comes to food, or medical drugs. (For good reason, in my opinion - but that's just that - a political opinion. Other people have different opinions on this subject.)
How does _Facebook_ make "billions" in China in particular? It's completely banned there.
Also, as others might point out that "Way into China is to abide by their rules and regulations" - which is not true when the restrictions imposed are to gut out the business and establish a CCP-controlled branch that serves only Chinese people. For example, Wikpedia is blocked, how is Wikipedia supposed to even enter the "market" (I know its a non-profit org).
The truth is that China doesn't want western information, knowledge and values. This stance hides behind "rules and regulations".
Facebook: you're not the customer, you're the product.
The US has (well, sometimes, to some extent) an ideological commitment to open markets. China does not.
The US exploited the advantages of open markets to great success.
Why would China not use the asymmetry now that they can?
Two lessons:
- Expecting your competitors to play by your rules is foolish.
- Concepts like morality and fairness get people going, but are not very useful to apply to nation states.
One example: NetEase doesn't operate Blizzard's games in China just because Blizzard thought it'd be a nice idea to share a piece of the pie.[0]
Western rules around media infrastructure ownership or food production, where almost all of the regulatory business is conducted out in the open, have no comparison here.
[0] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-10-11-publishers...
When I made that comment I was referring to SME, which is also the bulk of let's say, Chinese sellers on Amazon US.
Try to do what Chinese people do on Amazon, but on a Chinese platform as a SME, to sell products in China.
The reason Chinese SMEs are punching above their weight in foreign markets is because of their low cost of labour.
Try buying something like a coil winder, an induction heater, a spot welder, or a heat sealer. Even in the US, you're much more likely to find Chinese equipment more competitive and more readily available. Especially for an SME.
Well I guess that's depends on your definition of "successful", no?
Nothing stops a Croatian SME to enter the US market.
>That is to say, you'd need a pretty exceptional product, that is significantly better then local alternatives to get anywhere, because you're not going to be able to compete on price, or on brand recognition.
Even this is arguable because one of the biggest problems of Amazon US is the flood of low quality products, yet that doesn't stop them from being successful.
Then why aren't there any Croatian SMEs in the US market?
Is it because Croatians are bad at business? Bad at building things? Or do you think there may be other reasons for why they aren't successful?
> Even this is arguable because one of the biggest problems of Amazon US is the flood of low quality products, yet that doesn't stop them from being successful.
When you can't compete on quality, you have to compete on price.
To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.
Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do.
But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting.
Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.
And neither the US's nor China's national security claims are unjustified. Election interference, propaganda, and espionage are very real and legitimate concerns that all major world powers have regarding their communication infrastructure.
Trump might talk a big game to his constituents about the outsourcing of jobs -- but his economic agenda has absolutely nothing to do with the national security concerns voiced by US public servants.
"national security" is mentioned literally right at the beginning of the document that mandates the GFW.
> Article 3: The computer management and supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security is responsible for the security, protection and management of computer information networks and the Internet. The Computer Management and Supervision organization of the Ministry of Public Security should protect the public security of computer information networks and the Internet as well as protect the legal rights of Internet service providing units and individuals as well as the public interest.
> Article 4: No unit or individual may use the Internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the State, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities. [...]
There is a whole lexicon of alternative doublespeak if you pay attention.
While I'd say it should no longer be allowed, especially given China's relative place in the world compared to (say) 20 years ago, can you blame them for the initial desire?
I don't understand what exactly it is that is being 'allowed' that should be forbidden.. if China exports to foreign customers is it against moral sense to not allow in foreign business?
Also, I know of a certain country that relies heavily on its ability to sanction countries from effective participation in the entire global market..
That's the same for the US. When it suits them there's sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and questioning/forbiding foreign companies, investments, etc.
Both Google and Facebook once operated in China, but after the multiple terrorist attacks, they were unwilling (or unable) to comply with Chinese laws.
That’s why Skype and iMessage are available in China, they comply with Chinese laws.
'Terrorist attacks' from who exactly? When French or Polish resistance members assassinated Germans, I bet the Nazis thought that was 'terrorism.' The Chinese government likes to cry and moans about 'terrorism' from Tibetans and Uyghurs, but the CCP are the real terrorists in these situations. Any American company that cooperates with them are abetting genocide.
The main difference is that the Chinese only have one party -- which means they don't have to pretend their votes matter which might even be seen as an improvement (at least honesty wise).
Let’s be real, the Chinese government only wants to allow internet companies that will allow them to monitor all communication and traffic between Chinese citizens so that they can stamp out any dissent. But dissent and disagreement is not terrorism. It’s both creepy and Orwellian.
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_7362899f13ec8816e5dee88b26... According to Lee Kai-Fu who launched Google in China: "Chinese laws are clear about what foreign companies can do to operate in China. In TikTok's case, though, the company was left no choice but to consider a forced sale."
China doesn't routinely ban American internet companies for no apparent reason. The same laws laid in the clear are what the American competitors in China follow. Google proactively made the choice to exit China (it also somewhat didn't. Google ads has a sizable market share in China as does Facebook). This is not to say that I'm suggesting that they should have elected to follow Chinese laws. But it's not arbitrary.
This would be akin to saying the French are savages and routinely ban gun toting Americans from visiting so we should feel justified to ban any French from visiting. Sovereign governments have their own laws.
The reason is the China from the start saw US as a competitor to China's companies (and internal sovereignity, as the US likes to push its political agendas to other nations).
China wasn't seen as a competitor by the US, but as it's outsourced cheap factory - so as they were just that, they were ok. Now that China's companies get increasingly competitive and aim for the global market themselves, the US tries to stop them in various ways from doing business in the US.
("National interests" is a good catch all reason for that, "humans rights" is another good excuse - though when you do business just fine with all kinds of other human rights violator states - not to mention violate human rights left and right yourself -, it's evidently just an excuse).
Same thing when Japan got on the rise and started buying US companies and investing there. There was all kind of nationalistic objections, and in the end they were pressured to sign the Plaza accord, that hurt them to this day.
It is of course possible to invest in China, most large Western companies have, and it is profitable.
We've also all benefited from the huge pool of Chinese cheap labour.
China has also obviously benefited through an incredible economic development, which actually also benefits Western economies.
name a western brand of physical good that's not available in China. Granted that our lives are more software oriented in this forum, majority of the trade in this planet is decidedly not.
https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-li...
Because that's the equilibrium between the countries. Each side tries to negotiate whatever is most to their advantage and that's that. China wants more control over companies, the US wants access to what is going to be the world's largest market and source of qualified labour.
Each side can say no and walk away. For many US companies however that'd represent a significant loss, so they accept the conditions. Same reason people give Apple a 30% cut on their store.
In fact in consumer goods, foreign companies have more market share in China (40%) than the US (26%).
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insight...
I wouldn't underestimate the western multicopter scene and their ongoing hilarious shenanigans against the world's biggest drone maker.
This article is 3 years old now, you'd be mistaken thinking people gave up being given bigger challenges: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3knkgn/dji-is-locking-dow...
Most consumers do not give a damn about privacy. It is a growing sentiment, true, but it is not the majority of the user base.
Good joke about Huawei and Cisco. I can tell you the people eating Cisco's lunch are all other domestic companies and even big tech companies making their own network hardware.
Cisco on the other hand is an internal shitshow, they heavily outsource their software development to India resulting in "security patches" that attempt to just block user agents from triggering a exploit. :D
DJI makes consumer grade products and Boeing is a military contractor? How exactly does DJI impact Boeing's bottom line?
> “The US Congress is considering banning the US federal government from using foreign-made drones as part of its 2021 National Defense Authorization Act,” reported Flight. A junior US defence minister, Ellen Lord, in charge of procurement, added to the aerospace magazine: “We looked at the fact that basically DJI from China had decimated our industrial base for small UAVs, quadcopters and so forth, through pricing that was sub-cost and so forth.”
I don’t think there is any mechanism that allows such government action except the national security loophole.
Their insurance program saved my butt when I lost radio contact when I flew the drone over to a friend's back yard, and had misconfigured the "return-to-home" altitude too low, so it promptly flew itself into a tree trying to get back to me. $30 to get a full replacement was a huge relief.
It doesn't bother me much that they have a copy of my telemetry logs. I wouldn't want them to have copies of the video or pictures, and as I understand it those never leave the SD card.
It would be nice to have a "local data mode", but on the other hand, their cloud service is also authorizing the flight envelope based on GPS coordinates, and it's important that the device doesn't let itself be flown into air traffic corridors and the like.
Drones are a serious responsibility, and can be misused to cause a lot of damage, I'm totally willing to trade off some amount of tracking for the ability to have off-the-shelf access to this tech.
>I flew the drone over to a friend's back yard, and had misconfigured the "return-to-home" altitude too low
You claim to understand the need for responsible drone ownership, yet in the same comment mention how you crashed your drone (luckily only into a tree) while violating clearly-stated FAA line-of-sight guidelines (and also not having understood the basic flight controls and recovery options). This is some serious cognitive dissonance.
There was never danger to people or property (besides the drone itself). I just misjudged the one tall tree in the field between our houses which managed to exceed 30 meters, and somehow was unlucky enough for the drone to decide to fly exactly straight into the very top of it when the link dropped out.
Worth noting that the range of the remote is significantly less than claimed in the marketing materials, which is not really surprising because they claim 4km (!) and it dropped out on me at ~200 meters.
I do think they oversell their “return to home” feature and after spending more time on the forums and reading many similar experiences to my own, it’s much better to configure it to hover-in-place (or go up to a set altitude and hover there) on a lost signal, and then you can go to it instead of having it come to you.
Basically the marketing, training videos, and manual all make “return to home” sound like a better idea than it really is in practice.
Now I know from experience if the drone ever decides to fly itself somewhere you’re probably going to have a bad day. You aren’t going to learn that from reading their manual or watching their video tutorials.
This isn't really true. While radio links can of course perform poorly or unexpectedly at times, DJI's actually does deliver on their promises. It's quite incredible what they're doing with range of the control & video systems on 2.4 & 5.8Ghz actually. Not sure which model you have but the 2.4Ghz one will perform far better, though 5.8 is plenty fine in decent operating conditions. As you saw though, just because it can go 4km in normal conditions doesn't mean it won't ever hiccup for a variety of reasons (noise floor, obstructions, orientation, etc).
Seriously though, they must have a very high gain antenna to get 4km range at 2.4GHz with streaming video at unlicensed power levels, so there probably is a very specific antenna and controller orientation you are supposed to maintain to achieve that range.
I'm sure you know this, but in addition to the imagery being saved on the SD card, it is also streamed to your smartphone, which runs proprietary software and is connected to the internet.
Depends how big your house is, but in the UK (in the US you're OK I think) you would probably be flying the drone illegally. Here unless you have prior permission, you're not supposed to fly a drone within 150m of a "built up area". For most people your house is out because your street is not controlled by you, even if you only fly in your garden. Parks also count as built up areas.
This is so wrong headed. DJI is the Apple of small drones and basically created the category. I've used all competitors over the years including 3DR and Parrot and I suggest as an analogy that they are all Nokia style 'feature phones' compared to DJI's iphone line.
That said, there is a healthy ecosystem of larger custom drones for industry as well as FPV drone companies that exist, again as analogy perhaps like the Linux ecosystem exists in the presence of Apple.
It's a little scary.
It’s bullshit. These are not internet-attached devices, they shouldn’t be spying on us. I’d love to see similar approaches to even domestically-made and domestically-hosted manufacturers and collection APIs.
Should all internet-connected devices spy on us?
> “The US Congress is considering banning the US federal government from using foreign-made drones as part of its 2021 National Defense Authorization Act,”
This data was also supposed to be sent to a third party picked by the government and they would hold this data for months. I think it was on the lines of remote id or something.
Unrelated, but recently I finished an app for making recreational drone flying easy. Check it out https://dronetrails.app or download the test flight app at https://testflight.apple.com/join/id9NkioE
looks like all it takes to negotiate privacy w/ a big tech company is a million+ procurement process and a trade war
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/oas_flight_t...
they call it a 'government edition', if you search that term in the PDF the first few matches give some details