No, really, please ban Chinese DJI drones from America's skies, senators are urged US senators have been asked again to consider banning the use of drones made by Chinese manufacturer DJI in American airspace after a previous attempt to outlaw the machines was dropped. A ban was put forward by House Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as part of her proposed Countering CCP Drone Act. This draft legislation …
The news on bump stocks had passed me by. Reading the first few articles (especially the updated NY Times piece) horrified and saddened me. What's wrong with Merkins that gives them an insatiable desire to own and use the fastest possible killing machines on their fellow citizens?
Perhaps it's uncontrollable rage at the crap beer, cheese, chocolate, bacon, wine etc that they have foisted on them.
"What's wrong with Merkins that gives them an insatiable desire to own and use the fastest possible killing machines on their fellow citizens?"
It seems to be the news 'culture' of emphasising danger, gun violence (You Need a Gun to protect Yourself and Your Family from the Bad Guys who Already Have Guns). The level of Gun ownership in Canada is also quite high, but they have far less gun related violence per head of population that the USA, and have far less news designed to promote fear and anxiety than the USA.
Canada is the outlier.
Canada and the US are both outliers for the Americas, because most of the Americas are emerging economies. It makes far more sense to cluster countries together by economic & political background - in which case they both traditionally sit alongside Europe as "advanced economies" - prosperous and politically stable (we'll see how the US fares past November).
And in this telling, the US is the clear outlier.
Chart out "rates of firearm ownership" (x-axis) vs. "intentional homicides per 100k people" (y-axis) for the EU27, EEA, UK and ANZAC and what you get is a broadly flat line with intentional homicides fluctuating between 0.6/100k and 2.0/100k despite gun ownership varying by more than an order of magnitude between those countries.
Now if you add the US (6.3/100k), then it sits waaaay outside the cluster. But unless we accept that there's a "magic number" at play where a critical threshold is crossed and violence spikes, then it seems more likely this is down to their total lack of meaningful licensing or regulation of firearms ownership. Plus all the other stuff that politicians handwave away when they complain it's "just the guns" - things like the lack of social security, healthcare, falling standards of education. That inconsequential stuff that definitely doesn't(!) lead to a divided society.
If Canada is the "outlier", it's because it has a more advanced (European?) approach to public services (and some licensing, with a culture that treats firearms as a means-to-an-end, not an end-in-itself, which is important). But it's a weird thing to claim that Canada is the "outlier" in the Americas when you're comparing against places devastated by cartel activity, and formerly-stable nations that the CIA then interfered with on behalf of US interests. Maybe they are geographically, but they're still doing far better than the McMexicans south of the border.
Surprisingly, there is little to no correlation between gun ownership and homicide across advanced economies other than the US - Czechia has 10x higher ownership than the UK but half as many homicides. Italy, Australia and Germany all have much higher ownership than the UK but lower or similar homicides. This is mostly because we gutted our Police 15 years ago and have been struggling with things like illicit manufacture and enforcement ever since.
The basic interpretation is that once you impose a base level of licensing, homicides become detached from legal ownership because most gun violence is committed with black-market firearms - and that becomes an issue of enforcement (e.g. don't sack 20,000 police officers as part of your "tough-on-crime" austerity measures).
Now, Canada is still out at the top end of the homicide rates for advanced economies - 2-2.2/100k. This is probably due to their proximity to the US, overflow from US organised crime and their licensing mostly being lighter touch than Europe or ANZ. The US is the only (decreasingly) advanced nation which doesn't do firearm regulation... and the numbers speak for themselves.
I'm not sure the idea that "ah well, the Americas are inherently violent and Canada is doing really well by comparison" is either interesting or meaningful to policy makers when the USA is the most dangerous country in the G7. The proper question is "why does the country with the highest GDP per capita have a homicide rate comparable with emerging economies with a fraction of your GDP/cap and far lower living standards?"
The USA is the weird outlier and to pretend otherwise is apologism for successive political failures to maintain a modern infrastructure, or support an advanced economy outside of California, Cook County and New York.
I think this needs to be broken down into parts rather than over simplified.
Firstly re historical gun ownership in the US - The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2023, about 42 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession., which a aligns with what you said about Canada.
Secondly, from a 2017 article in "the Hill" - More than eight in 10 Americans favor a ban on devices that allow gun owners to modify semi-automatic rifles to mimic the fire of automatic weapons, according to an NPR-Ipsos poll out Friday. Although it has been 7 years since the ban I doubt public opinion has changed much. The Supreme Court is not elected nor answerable to the public.
Thirdly, there are (non-law-enforcement) people who live or work in places/situations where they rationally choose to have a gun to protect Yourself and Your Family from the Bad Guys who Already Have Guns. Not me because I live in a neighborhood with a crime rate about 100x less that just a dozen miles away. The objective truth is that in many cities bottom half of earning curve housing equates to high crime risk. I can not in good conscience criticize someone for making the choice to arms themselves why I myself don''t face the same risks they do. Yet I still think bump stocks should be illegal and support other sensible gun regulations.
"The level of Gun ownership in Canada is also quite high..."
The devil is in the details. Guns in Canada are almost all hunting rifles and shotguns and the like. Private ownership of handguns and assault rifles is rare and mostly isolated to a} people who just like to practice marksmanship on the range as a hobby and b} nutjobs. Culturally we don't have a gun fetish. The weapons that exist aren't for protection from other apes. They're for warding off coyotes near the barn. City dwellers basically don't do guns, mostly.
"The level of Gun ownership in Canada is also quite high, but they have far less gun related violence per head of population that the USA, and have far less news designed to promote fear and anxiety than the USA."
IIRC Canada is more like e.g. Sweden: plenty of guns, but mostly hunting rifles and shotguns[1], and not very many handguns. Combine with strict carry- and storage laws, and gun violence becomes less of an issue.
[1] And a serious frown on "tactical" looking rifles and shotguns.
I would suggest reading the specific judgement. SCOTUS didn't rule that it was cool for Americans to own bump stocks, they ruled that the currently enacted laws don't prohibit them.
Broadening the scope of existing laws through loose application of the wording bypasses Checks and Balances and the onus is upon the legislative branch to rewrite and pass an updated law that is either constitutional or is passed after an appropriate amendment.
Broadening the scope of existing laws through loose application of the wording bypasses Checks and Balances and the onus is upon the legislative branch to rewrite and pass an updated law that is either constitutional or is passed after an appropriate amendment.
Does it really? If you want the legislature to consider every single detail of every possible scenario in every area of law, then you'd certainly have your "checks and balances", but on the other hand legislation would be so long and detailed that virtually none would be passed, and everything would be legal unless the legislature happened to have thought about it beforehand. The practical work-around to achieve functioning government is that government departments and agencies are allowed to interpret and create rulers, they themselves are subject to political oversight. This is a tried and tested approach worldwide, it works and works surprisingly well, although it seems that the US SC are working to dismantle this.
Of course, in the case of bump stocks, it depends what checks and balances you think were missing from the original ban. The ban on bump stocks was enacted by the Justice Department under DJT, in response to the Vegas shooting, where some True American Patriot exercised his Constitutional Mom-and-Apple-Pie right to own multiple assault rifles and massacre 60 of his fellow citizens and wounded 413 more.
They should print out the constitution on soft paper with perforations about five inches apart, then at least if would be fit for one purpose.
As I said, please read the judgment. The part of the law that was used to justify the ban was directed against machine guns, which a bump stock clearly is not, nor does it turn a semi automatic firearm into a machine gun. If this is confusing, I recommend looking up how firearms work.
I have no interest in nor intention to argue the rights and wrongs of bump stock ownership. I am only discussing the way Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances work in the United States. A law need not be excessively complex, one could simply define 'devices which increase the firing rate beyond that obtainable through conventional trigger operation' as prohibited items and thwart future ingenuity. Lawmakers had years to make these changes and, instead, they sat on their arses with fingers crossed that SCOTUS wouldn't do their jobs.
Justifying transgressions as responses to emergencies invites tyranny and if lawmakers cannot pass effective, well written laws then perhaps they aren't the best people for those jobs. Emergency powers acts are written for this precise purpose and having what politicians and agencies can and cannot do in response to emergencies allows for consent of the citizenship to be obtained prior to emergencies through acceptance or objections to these powers.
Actually, a bump stock does convert a semiautomatic gun into a machine gun. Although a lot of machine guns use a more reliable gas bleed to cycle the bolt it is possible to use the recoil directly so the only difference between a recoil operated machine gun proper and a bump stock is that the whole gun moves instead of just the bolt. Its a technicality -- and its not a particularly satisfactory solution -- but it does the job.
The only difference in practice between a semi-automatic gun and a machine gun is the seer (ratchet) mechanism that prevents the bolt from cycling on its own is not allowed to be held off. The modification is trivial (if illegal) and these days its become popular for gangbangers to add an inexpensive aftermarket 'switch' to their Glocks to convert them to full automatic. (Yes, its illegal -- but then discharging a pistol with intent to kill or maim is also illegal.)
I disagree with your assessment on the basis that a bump stock is not needed to perform a similar operation and that your definition would mean all semi automatic firearms would be defined as machine guns. In the case of the law examined by SCOTUS, it came down to the fact that said law describes 'multiple shots with one single function of the trigger' (not a direct quote) as a key feature of a 'machine gun'. This doesn't apply to a bump stock because its entire function is to use the recoil to actuate the trigger against the finger.
Similarly, it's quite legal to add a (silly looking) crank trigger but as soon as that crank is turned by a source of power other than the user, it becomes illegal.
I'd also add that one of the Justices who voted in favour of the decision voiced support for a ban but correctly pointed out that it was the job of Congress to legislate appropriately.
Similarly, it's quite legal to add a (silly looking) crank trigger but as soon as that crank is turned by a source of power other than the user, it becomes illegal.
See, here's the issue. If we're saying that "user input means it's not a machine gun" as an argument, then the hand-cranked Gatling gun is not a machine gun... this is perhaps not your intention. Similarly, the Maxim Gun was the first full automatic machine gun... and it was recoil operated. Much like a semi-auto with a bump stock.
Whilst I do share your concerns about courts or executive bodies stretching the meaning of legislation to suit themselves, it's also not entirely ridiculous to approach the issue from a position of equivalency. If a motor-driven crank that repeatedly operates the trigger of a semi-auto rifle is illegal and makes it a machine gun, then a hand-driven crank trigger should as well.
Otherwise you just run down a whack-a-mole trail of clever knobs deciding that something isn't technically illegal because of a smart-alec bit of engineering.
We've had a couple in the UK who have tried to loophole our (excessively onerous, sometimes effective, rather piecemeal) legislation with odd bits of design that sort of bypass the legislation if you squint a bit. They insist that it's fine because they have a written opinion from a legal expert that it's compliant - which immediately fails the "trying too hard" test. In one case the government just tacked on a clause to an existing Policing Bill that explicitly banned them (and anything like them) - which is fine, but possibly not the best use of limited parliamentary time.
In another case a ballistics bod took their "it's a spigot not a barrel, therefore it's not an airgun (under firearms law)" and rolled a small ball bearing down the centre of the spigot. They fired it and concluded that regardless of what it was designed or intended as... it was functionally an airgun because it could fire a projectile from the barrel-they-claimed-wasn't-a-barrel, and since it was running at a higher power than .22lr(!), it was definitely in scope!
I get it, we wouldn't want to be in a place where new products had to receive explicit approval on a model-by-model basis, even if they were just O/U shotguns or bolt-action hunting rifles. But also, the "push your luck" side of the industry strikes me as more than a bit antagonistic. Taking the piss sours relations with Police (in those countries where we have cordial relations) and is never going to lead to reforms that the industry would like - they only tend to impart additional restrictions!
If it looks and quacks like a duck. If it delivers the same end result as a machine gun and is explicitly designed to try and avoid the prohibitions on machine guns... then don't complain too hard if the authorities "take a view" (their interpretation is usually less tortured than that required to argue that it's all fine and good!).
I was wondering who made the 'cheap' 'Kamikaze' drones used by both sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If the Ukrainians are using DJI drones, and they send data to the PRC, then clearly the PRC is not relaying this information to the Russians in any useful way. According to one BBC news report, the Ukrainian army is claiming 100 Russian solders killed by drones per day on each 10 kilometre stretch of the front line.
The Russians favour glide bombs though, and I have no idea who makes the electronics for GPS / Glonass guidance in those.
The Drones you see on YT with a HUD are not DJI.
The HUD (the font gives it away) gives it away its a minimosd which costs about $5 and the source code is open source. Minimosd runs on analog transmitters. Nobody with a DJI drone would use an analog video transmitter for many reasons.
The DJI video transmitter is 720 or 1080 and has a far better range of close to 10kms, an analog vid transmiter is SD and very grainy and never gets anywhere near several kms.
The only way an analog vid tx is getting kms is if they are flying in the clouds not near the ground.
I have had several DJI drones and although I do not support this ban what they are talking about is perfectly possible. The devices are connected to a controller (sometimes dedicated, sometimes a mobile phone). The user needs to register the drone with DJI to get updates etc, which it downloads to the controller to send to the drone. As the controller stores EXTREMELY detailed flight logs it is not impossible for the controller to receive the logs from the drone and then send them to China over this new fangled internet things to avoid having to transmit them directly.
Aha! But the areas where no drones have flown over must be secret military installations where drone overflight is banned! I can identify them by lack of activity... OK they might just be places in the middle of f'ing nowhere...
...so Plan B then, I will generate fake flight logs to poison the data pool and re-direct targeting to Mar-a-Lago instead (OK who said the technique wasn't actually useful).
Actually Mar-a-Lago will be protected from drones by a large orange blimp. It will fly a big balloon as well.
Aha! But the areas where no drones have flown over must be secret military installations where drone overflight is banned! I can identify them by lack of activity... OK they might just be places in the middle of f'ing nowhere...
Ah, well, this is not a threat. So DJI's are supposed to connect to the mothership to download updates. Part of those updates are the geofencing co-ordinates telling the drone where it shouldn't be flying. Which means DJI already knows where drone overflights are banned. If that restricted list is passed to Chinese intelligence, who could then task their analysts to figure out why they have restrictions. Could be an air field, could be a prison, could be a sekret military base. It probably isn't a sekret military base located below a naturist beach or reserve, so image analysts should stop doing the zoom & enhance thing looking for an entry.
...so Plan B then, I will generate fake flight logs to poison the data pool and re-direct targeting to Mar-a-Lago instead (OK who said the technique wasn't actually useful).
Or use a DJI with a ring dropper to drop a cookery book on Chuch Schumer's next back-yard bbq attempt. But that's one of those genies that's long fled the bottle. Ukraine has demonstrated that cheap drones can make very effective 'smart' weapons. This has prompted another arms race figuring out ways jam, spoof or destroy incoming drones. Which also means figuring out who or what needs protecting, which could be anything from VIPs to infrastructure. Which also means who has the right to defend against the DJI Phantom menace, and when can I get 4x CIWS to protect myself and property.
Depends what you call detailed.
The logs only have gps coords and altitude with a time.
Thaats not really going to help anyone in china, except tell them where you were flying. They still wont have a clue what you saw, because the video is not uploaded.
What exactly are they going to do knowing where opeople fly with no video ?
"As the controller stores EXTREMELY detailed flight logs it is not impossible for the controller to receive the logs from the drone and then send them to China over this new fangled internet things to avoid having to transmit them directly."
I also have a DJI drone and use a non-connected tablet as the UI. About once a year I connect the drone to the internet to perform updates and I don't notice it sending flight logs and video which isn't stored onboard, but on a microSD card that I reformat after each use. Occasionally, I have to install an unlock code to fly in a restricted area, but again, I'm not seeing loads of data being uploaded to DJI.
What I'm sensing is a load of hysteria. I don't see people with the skills demonstrating that DJI drones are sending data back to DJI that's other than model, serial number and diagnostic codes. It has to be remembered that politicians are nearly all attorneys which are a group that's about as technofeeb as they come.
If I was to build my own drone from parts, getting it certified and registered would likely be a very complicated process. I already have to maintain a license, drone registration, RID module registration and insurance. I don't want to add the cost of taking one in to the FAA to have it looked over in addition to getting a FCC certificate for the radio links and the need to fiddle about making the thing work as a finished product so I can provide aerial photos and videos to customers. How much would my insurance company charge to cover a drone I built myself?
Drone batteries run out after a few minutes... so what is going to power the drone while it waits for a Huawei tower to come close buy ?
Transmitting the video of your flight also requires an equivalent amount of battery as the flight time... again where is this extra battery going to come from ?
You knew AC's comment was sarcasm, right??
The idea that [most] DJI drones are capable of sending useful data to China is the absolute stupidest thing I think I've ever heard. My gawd the GOP peddles in FUD like its a Wall Strret investment! Video is saved to your SD card and unless your computer has a connection to the ROC I fail to see how that video data is getting from you...to anywhere else, really, unless you send it yourself.
Unless the GOP is suggesting that most DJI drones have *terrabytes* of hidden built-in storage to keep secret copies of your video footage to upload to hidden servers, all by itself?
And the update fear? GPS info with no context. What was overflown? How would they know without that video, which would take *hours* or at least very noticeable time to upload when you connect for your update.
Seriously, someone needs to walk into the House and call them flaming IDIOTS for even SUGGESTING this is all technological reasonable to pull off.
That comment was not serious, and your response to it, in addition to missing that important fact, is also wrong.
Let's consider a theoretical world where DJI drones are linked in with Huawei-built towers, which to be clear, is not happening. No, uploading video taken during a ten minute flight does not take as much power as flying for ten minutes. Flying around takes lots of power. Transmitting data has nowhere near the power requirements. Also, in our theoretical world, it doesn't have to fly to the tower. It can send to the tower while standing comfortably on the ground, perhaps on the charging station on which the user places it after flight.
In your zeal to disprove something that nobody believes, you've invented several problems with the concept that are not real. The drones are refraining from sending video, but not because it wouldn't be possible. They are refraining from sending the video because A) it would be expensive in time and money to get the infrastructure to transmit it, B) it would be expensive in time and money to get the infrastructure to store it, C) it would be detectable unless they spend even more time and money hiding it, D) if discovered, they'd probably lose customers, and perhaps most importantly E) nobody wants the data that would be collected by so doing anyway. If you can find a way round those five things, I can build you a transmission system that will have few power-related problems.
9Rune5: What we do know is that China is not a close ally, nor are they keen on promoting democracy.
cow: Democracy ?
Lets get some scales out....
Sure china doesnt promote democacy but thats only 1.5b, lets count america and its friends....
Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, Iran, South america...before you know it one has easily reached several billion and i havent even mentioned america itself.
How about you be honest and say they are both not promoting democracy.
9Rune5: Doesn't have to be video. A few stills might suffice for all we know.
cow: Sure...
I guess ther eare plenty of stills of A380s so where are chinas copies ?
No, the handheld controller connects to the Internet by WIFI and uploads flight logs and also get authorization to fly from DJI. No internet, no fly.
You can read countless stories of people vacations that were ruined because of this. Like people to spent a fortune to go on safari in africa and took the DJI drone, only to find that it would not take off due to no internet there in the bush.
I own two of them, I know how they work. I hate and despise DJI the company. The drone itself is great. The crippling spyware is horrific. My next drone will be home built.
The USA are only so paradoid about China, because they think China is doing all the same spying that the USA does on the rest of the world.
Personally I wish they would ban more Chinese technology. It is pretty much always better and cheaper and more reliable than anything the USA can make themselves.
Send the USA back to the dark ages where they belong. Make their people pay double for inferior USA made products, and hike up their cost of living and inflation.
Hypocritically they only want "free trade" when there is a clear MAGA vision, like manufacturing or jobs, that they are getting the better deal, and its them benefiting, but they are clueless about the actual benefits they are really receiving. The USA is such a corrupt nation.
Vote for MAGA and watch what happens. Gilead will be right around the corner.
Trumpf told a recent audience that Christians should vote for him and they'd never have to vote again.
With the removal of income tax and a 10% tax hon everything you import/buy, guess who is going to win that game of craps? The rich unless you are a maker of Red Cloth that can be made into hoods.
TBH, the future with Trumpf back in the White House for the rest of the world is pretty bleak. It won't be long before those DJI drones become hot properties for the black market (and drug pushers).
"Personally I wish they would ban more Chinese technology. It is pretty much always better and cheaper and more reliable than anything the USA can make themselves. Send the USA back to the dark ages where they belong."
Several times in these forums the sinophiles like the AC above have expressed that any restriction on transfer of goods to China will only bolster China's own industry since they will start copying the products.
How does this not apply to USA? If there is a demand for drones is it not likely that someone will start producing them and DJI will just lose some business?
Thats exactly what 3DRobotics did about 10 years ago. They would source stuff from other places, and then "assemble" them in Tijuana and moved them to CA to sell. Their entire business model was charging 3x their import cost and using some of that money to pay 1 developer to work on the open source software arducopter/arduplane.. Worked well, until DJI killed them with the first HD tx system, while 3dR was still stuck on shitty analog at 640.
Several times in these forums the sinophiles like the AC above have expressed that any restriction on transfer of goods to China will only bolster China's own industry since they will start copying the products.
How does this not apply to USA? If there is a demand for drones is it not likely that someone will start producing them and DJI will just lose some business?
Comparative Advantage, as figured out by Ricardo in 1817.
When people refer to China developing their own tech (on this site, usuallly in reference to photolithography and silicon fabs), that's them improving the upper bounds of what their economy is capable of, and moving into higher margin goods.
The US has more than enough expertise in both the software and hardware steps required to manufacture DJI-like drones. It doesn't put that to use at the moment because cost of labour in the US renders it unviable. The same drone would be twice the price. That resource labour is better put into higher-margin goods, like new and exciting designs of bomb to kill furriners with.
The US can certainly put in place tariffs or bans, which would make Chinese drones less price competitive. But on balance the US (and global) economy suffers because people are then paying over the odds for a US-built drone, which represents an opportunity cost (they could spend the difference on something else).
And of course if the ban is specific to Chinese/DJI drones, then it's possible that a non-Chinese brand moves in - continuing to undercut domestic production by offering a low-price non-Chinese model.
They should be hanging every fortune 500 american board, for aiding the enemy and building up chinese technology and wealth.
People in WW2 got hung for helping the enemy far less...
Its amazing how nobody ever asks how the chinese got so much of this tech in the first place. Tech, money, educaated engineers, all possible because of american greed.
Between having a drone licence, not flying a drone within 8kms of people, nuclear, protected natural, military and assorted kitchen sink locations, then having to *physically* go to an office 40kms away to register a flight's date and time *in advance* and having to be a data controller for GDPR compliance if the thing has a camera, I deleted my DJI purchase from my Amazon basket on the grounds that it was effin impossible to use the thing.
Believe it or not roughly the same rules apply in the US. The FAA is a bit more pragmatic because they have a lot of experience in regulating aviation so unlike the senators and other "ban it all" types they recognize that there's a big gulf between making legislation and enforcing it. But we do have pilot licensing, drones have to carry remote identification, there are a lot of restricted areas (usually geofenced so the drone wont fly into them or take off while inside them) and there's a system for filing flight plans using a mobile application.
Being pragmatists, though, they recognize that they can't hover over every person's shoulder to enforce their regulations. Congress mandated that they develop regulations for UAVs -- drones -- which, being typical Congress, had all the finesse of a drop forge. (This "Ban Chinese" is typical Legislative grandstanding - glib and utterly impractical.) The result hasn't been entirely satisfactory for everyone (including traditional modellers) but it provides a framework that allows most people to carry on as they have been doing with minimal interference or oversight. Where there is a problem the FAA will enforce -- they've done it before -- but overall the answer to any problem is not 'more regulation'.
In the UK (and i presume the EU, 'cos laws are similar) you can fly a sub-250g drone pretty much anywhere (apart from the obvious, like airports, prisons etc.) including near buildings and over people, with just an operator ID from the CAA (which costs just over a tenner a year).
No flight plans required, and (in the case of DJI) the inbuilt geofencing will stop you from accidentally going somewhere that might start a nuclear war!
Oh, and i don't think that GDPR applies to individuals.
Undelete your Amazon purchase - you might enjoy it ;)
I haven't looked at Spain, but in France anywhere that is considered part of a town is off-limits even to the sub-250g drones, it also has a much lower maximum height of 50m vs the 120m or 150m I have seen elsewhere.
That said France the operator ID is free and lasts 5 years, it is also valid across the EU, which the UK one isn't since Brexit.
I have been looking in to it before taking a drone on holiday.
I also looked at Egypt and THERE they are basically banned, and will be confiscated from luggage on arrival as a tourist
This is just brinkmanship.
"Some lawmakers in the United States have been considering banning DJI following warnings from the FBI and CISA that the Chinese-made drones could collect data about America and its inhabitants while out and about and send that info back to Beijing"
You mean exactly the same claim that will get apple, Microsoft and amazon kicked out of China.
Not that I care for those companies in any reasonable way. I care for the stability of the country I live in, which while not being either America or China, will be massively impacted by this fucking idiocy.
Not to mention just the base load mental stress of being told that they are basically gearing up for if not massive economic war, outright physical war over this crap
And this is either true, in which case its equally true for American companies in China and a massive problem for the world that has to deal with it.
OR
This is entirely in the failing brains and imaginations of the retiree age, mentally unequipped for our modern times, rulers that make the rules, and a massive problem for the world that has to deal with it.
Not to mention just the base load mental stress of being told that they are basically gearing up for if not massive economic war, outright physical war over this crap
Interesting you should say that. There's an excellent piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (registration required) that is worth the effort of registering for.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/24/chinas-third-plenum-is-almost-a-declaration-of-economic-war/
You were doing alright until your descent into casual ageism. I suppose I could put it down to your being young, naive, having not yet lived long enough to gain experience of the world to mentally equip yourself with the understanding that there have always been "modern times" and that these particular "modern times" depend heavily on the inventions of some of those now retired and thus in your despised category of "retirees".
I agree. This 75 year old dotard has just got in from a couple of hours mountain biking, rides a motorbike, flies a light aircraft - including instrument rating - and in the winter months enjoys writing a bit of c++ and rust, just for the mental stimulation. Don't be in quite such a hurry to write alus off.
There are plenty of professional drone users in the US, including first responders. And most of them use DJI. This legislation is being pushed by the very small US drone manufactures, so are generally way behind DJI in terms of technology. The US drone users are very much against this.
I've got a DJI drone and accessories at work worth over $40k, is congress going to pay to replace it?
To allay fears of rogue drone operators harassing people, the US invoked Remote ID that drones must have to fly legally (doesn't apply to somebody flying illegally). Now I have a module strapped to my drone that transmits my information via bluetooth. It took some time to get the module as they were in high demand and I was worried that I'd have to replace my whole kit with a new drone model that had RID built in at one point for big bucks. The requirement is laughable. Bluetooth? The signal is dodgy and very few people know how to find an app to get the data. The police officers I know have no idea about it. Anybody going off to do something dodgy isn't going to add the module or program in their correct information. It's not like there would be any additional punishment for not having it on top of what ever offense they might be charged with if that even goes to court.
I'm not sure how many people have noticed, but if you look at the "satellite" images on Google maps, the credit/copyright line shows Airbus. Many overhead images are being gathered via regular flights which has to be less expensive than from satellites. The resolution can be much better since proper high quality optics can be used from much closer to the ground. The places where large jet aircraft don't fly can be filled in with satellite images and are likely off the beaten path so there isn't the demand for the same level of resolution. This is just Google. There are still many satellite imaging companies that are happy to sell data and can even provide it in different spectral bands, with changes over time/season noted, etc. A bit of drone imagery here and there is more of a pain to collect and archive along with being limited to 400' (122m) in most places. The wide angle lens on my drone makes bulk surveillance a chore.
The imagary for high-resolution mapping and other services is not gathered from scheduled flights, that is a conspiracy theory I have heard a few times now. It is gathered by survey pilots like me, in light aircraft (usually twin prop beechcraft and cessnas) with high resolution cameras that fly up and down for hours at a time. Much of the work we do is surveying for roads, housing or industrial developments, etc. We also have thermal sensors that can help look for gas and water leaks. Occasionally we do work for mapping companies.
The reason the data you see is copyright airbus is that they have a large geospatial intelligence arm that combines all the map data, imagery (in various wavelengths) and POI data. They comission survey pilots to go and take photos, then combine those with other information to create large geospatial databases. See https://intelligence.airbus.com/ - Its not the bit of airbus that builds the planes you go on holiday in.
mach:
I'm not sure how many people have noticed, but if you look at the "satellite" images on Google maps, the credit/copyright line shows Airbus. Many overhead images are being gathered via regular flights which has to be less expensive than from satellites.
cow: says who besides you ?
You do realise that most flights go along air highways and most of the earth by a significant margin is not under one of these. Planes are not criss crossing any continent in such a pattern that they could get satellite photos of eveyrhing.
What your claiming would result in very thin bands of photography.
"What your claiming would result in very thin bands of photography."
Absolutely and what you say would make more of an impression if I was saying that ALL aerial imagery was being derived that way, but I'm not. Think about where the most large jets travel, large cities. Where is the most detailed imagery wanted? Large cities. Someplace such as Gillette, WY, not so much.
If you look at Flightaware zoomed to the entirety of the US, it's easy to see where the major air routes are, but that there's also a lot of "puddle jumping" going on. When there are large storms, aircraft can be routed around to avoid turbulence so while those routes aren't flown over frequently, it's often enough to get good images.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
