DJI might get banned next in the US
theverge.com
theverge.com
It's frustrating because even if we grant there's significant national security harm happening from DJI drone data, there are far more direct and effective ways to mitigate any such harm. For example, mandate that consumer drone data acquired in the U.S. cannot be stored in or transit China without a license. At the same time reverse the new FAA requirement for drone manufacturers to install software remote kill switches on consumer drones. While the idea may have sounded vaguely appealing in concept, in practice it's been a huge hassle for American consumers while being ineffective as a security measure because it's so easy for bad actors to work around. Thus, the only remaining effect is the unintended consequence that it forces U.S. consumers by law to accept the anti-feature of drone makers being able to kill American's drones at will - including foreign owned companies.
What problems have Americans faced because of this relationship?
The pandemic was the trigger event that gave us the activation energy to accept supply chain disruptions and ease into the pain of decoupling. It'll go much faster now. The de-China-fication is going to accelerate rapidly.
The game is now near-shore, friend-shore. Mexico is now the biggest trade partner of the US, and it's still only ramping up. The rail and truck corridors are growing significantly and we're about to pour in huge infrastructure investments.
We have so defiled the American dream that if psychological or ecological terrorism on a scale large enough to alter the course of life on planet isn't allowed to continue unabated and increase its cataclysmically planetary destructive activities over time then all of our grandparents will starve to death homeless in a ditch somewhere and possibly us along with them.
Elon and Bozo being worth multi-multi-billions has nothing to do with the pursuits of millions of people.
The crime I would put on the millions is being intentionally oblivious to it all.
For example, thinking that people communicating on a proprietary corporate s/w platform constitutes a "community", or a "friend". This especially includes the gun porn "community" who think rolling around on the ground in their cammys is their version of "the dream".
An extreem example of that would be: https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-04-26/far-righ...
It still is because that’s how corporations work: “how will x affect my bottom line?”
It’s just now we have layers of concern that involve privacy. In a world with no regulation, corps would be sharing a lot more and doing a lot worse.
It's probably not China's preferred option, but whether they like it or not there's going to come a point where business relationships reach a tipping point and Apple will have to pick sides.
> It's probably not China's preferred option, but whether they like it or not there's going to come a point where business relationships reach a tipping point and Apple will have to pick sides.
If you make Apple choose, they're probably going to get fucked, because (at this point) they can't not pick China: they're too invested and too dependent.
I read a long-form article maybe a year ago that talked about how Apple's efforts to reduce their dependence on China haven't been very effective.
But personally, I think forcing them to choose would be the right call. Tanking their share price and forcing them to burn their savings trying to save the company would send a strong message.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/123esqi/...
It would be remarkably sad if America's largest tech company was rendered non-functional without Chinese labor to exploit. If Apple's fate is to close up shop without anticompetitive levels of market control, I guess they deserve what's coming to them.
The first is fairly easy to fix, the latter is really a bigger problem than your 401k anyway.
Instead of banning the communist hardware they could require open standards/access for interfaces, firmware and so on. Then again, sharing code does smell a bit like communism too. So let's better err on the side of freedom and ban everything.
cloud based, calling home, telemetry, video/radio surveillance, logistics exfiltration. Pretty much same arguments as in case of Chinese port cranes sending video feeds of sensitive shipments/port operations back to China, except on a global scale with high margin of deployments in security scenarios (police/fire/rescue/inspection/military).
One example is current Ukrainian situation. China gets a feed of who/where/how/what and how successful from supposedly civilian hardware.
Chinese economic influence is rapidly expanding all over the globe. In the long run, losing the US market will become less of a threat.
I'd say develop tech sovereignty despite Chinese competition. Even if it's expensive, because I think the alternative would be much more costly.
https://www.wsj.com/world/how-american-drones-failed-to-turn...
This law, `Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019':
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4998
Should certainly apply to android, iOS, windows, and most modern american made automobiles, televisions, refrigerators?, and almost all consumer electronics that are net connected.
The collection and efiltration of personal data from the entire population is a national security risk.
I guess they're still an alternative to DJI's commercial segment, but I don't know of any competitors to DJI for most of their consumer drones.
In times of good economies, open borders, and peace, it might. But it also incurs significant risk if there are disruptions.
> If domestic companies require patronage from the state in order to remain in business, they should not exist, no matter the conditions in some other jurisdiction.
DJI and similar Chinese tech companies are benefiting from very significant protectionism, themselves. Should they not exist?
So do lots of other things, and you need to balance competing sources of harm against each other. Allowing foreign companies benefitting from protectionist policies drive domestic industries out of business leaves consumers vulnerable to several other harms. You can't just do everything in a vacuum without considering the context because it's the "right thing to do" and expect the best outcomes.
I think it'd be better to ban remote kill switches and instead mandate GIS databases that warn you if you're violating airspace restrictions (for drones over a certain size, where this isn't adding a bunch of complexity).
Shielding domestic drone manufacturers from international competition essentially guarantees that we'll fall behind China. That will cause a national security issue worse than the current situation.
Sometimes I wonder if the regulators are intentionally screwing the US over, or if it's just that the federal government has become unable to coordinate the actions of its own agencies.
edit: The sibling comments are great examples of why we need strong privacy laws. If it was illegal for DJI to exfiltrate the data the drones gather back to their manufacturers, then those classes of national security issues would take care of themselves, and the rules would solve the problem for all industries, not just this one company.
Source?
I'm a Part 107 pilot, and none of the commercial stuff I fly has those restrictions.
I dumped DJI when I couldn’t get it to unlock for a job at an airport.
It seems if the USactually wanted people to drive EVs and put photovoltaic on their houses that they would embrace Chinese government subsidized products. Why wouldn't we want the Chinese subsidy to advance the US's electrification?
WRT the the security vulnerabiliters, this is just another case of protecting US surveilance companies.
A law to ban all user data collection and exfiltration would be the most benificial to the population, but I think goggle would have a few complaints.
I don't like Apple, but this was exactly their argument against putting in backdoors to unlock people's devices, and I support them in that.
Interesting to see the US taking things a step further.
It's weird to me that so many congress-people are convinced this is a existential threat, but nobody shares any meaningful evidence. It feels like the kind of situation where "We can't tell them to move the nukes out of ____ because then they'll know our capabilities to detect their nukes."
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/21/1239691465/tiktok-ban-bill-se...
Never buying DJI again.
is the article simplifying something? The law mentions networks, but would a better word be bands or something? I’m not familiar with drones but I would think most of them do not use what you’d call a network.
Instead of competing, US thinks it can ban it's way to success.
Oh boy, the American red scare talk.
It's 2024 guys. Capitalism won. You can stop salivating when you hear the word 'communism'.
Traitor Trump said this, sleepy Joe looked there, bad communist China will take freedom guns away... in 10 years American English will be fully memefied dum-dum talk.