I learned the hard way, back in September of '22 when I received the oddly urgent e-mail, to install that "update" to my
Mini 3 Pro which force-enabled RID, to carefully examine & closely read the details of any updates, prior to allowing them, rather than simply & witlessly trusting DJI to be looking out for our best interests.
I'm certainly not opposed to updating firmware, & especially, if that improves the safety of operation - what I do oppose & have a major issue with, is it being forced, & unable to be unlocked - at least, by any "conventional" means.
(More on that later.)
A side note, & I've asked & mentioned this before & elsewhere, forthe
Mini 4 Pro, there's an update which (supposedly?) allows the RID feature to be turned off whenever the "Standard" battery is being used.
But, despite the very similar specifications, no such firmware update has been issued for the
Mini 3 Pro, & I suspect, likely never will be, DJI's focus now being on selling theirnewer model version.
Back to my original topic.
I posted this in the official DJI forum, after stumbling across similar posts there, 7 years ago, when DJI 1st issued the GEOFENCING “feature/function” & all the many subsequent complaints regarding it — now, it's kind of like looking into a time capsule, after what has transpired since.
I'm still expecting & waiting for it to be taken down, but so far, it hasn't:
===================================================================
"Now, here we are, nearly 7 years later, looking at what might be a kind of "time capsule" & there's not only expanded forms &/ versions of Geo, there's also RID (Remote Identification) requirements.
Many things have changed during those 7 years, but not all.
Some in this thread have been supportive of DJI's Geo tool, while others have not, & their respective opinions & positions on those have been posted above.
The explanation seems evident that some are "born to the collar & chain", while others are not; that there are those who are not, & reject that kind of mindset, seems to mystify & surprise those who were born & live under an invasive & oppressive dictatorship like the CCP, as they have grown up & live knowing nothing else.
I have no issues with the country, or its citizens, but the same can not be said for their gov't.
What was it that 1 of the USA founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said about liberty vs safety? Ah, yes...
& yet another of Franklin's compatriots, Samuel Adams, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom - go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
DJI is in the business of manufacturing & selling products, & for their own betterment & profit; they are anything but altruistic, despite any allusions &/ assertions to the contrary.
They care nothing about those who purchase & use them, beyond how their products are used, & how that might have a potential impact to their bottom line.
Any doubts regarding that can be easily dispersed when considering the current & past history of the CCP, & "now-president-for-life" Xi Jinping even manages to out-do Soviet-Era Russia, & the infamous Josef Stalin, in examples of iron-fisted oppression, ruthlessness, & cruelty.
With all of these built-in handicaps, limitations, &/ restrictions, such as the Geo feature, etc. shilled & pawned off under the guise of "safety" & notably & particularly,
ex post facto, DJI is only acting in its own self-interest, & specifically, financial; that they have done so,
after their products are purchased, is the epitome of "Big Brother & the Nanny State".
That they can do so, sometimes without prmission &/ recourse, is the height of both arrogance, & dishonesty.
Currently, as you may or may not be aware, there are a number of measures in the U.S. Congress, to either severely restrict, if not, outright ban DJI products, & specifically, their UAVs, from being used, either just for any gov't agency, or even extending farther.
Those concerns are not unjustified, as there are also a myriad of links & sites available, decribing the lengths, & depths, & events, to which the CCP has, & will go, to obtain information - whether they are doing so now at this moment, is irrelevent - the fact that they can, at any time & for any reason, or no reason, is the key point.
Without going down the myriad of various "rabbit holes" & filling my post with a long list of links, one may perform their own research - indeed, with a few keywords, the returns yielded many pages of results for me!
As an example, a simple copy&paste from 1 of the sites:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control
DJI implemented “GEO” in the name of safety which restrict flying by operators who have legal permission to fly in areas that are marked by DJI as “No Fly Zones” 3)
Unlock processes are cumbersome and time consuming. In many countries, requests to unlock need to be made weeks in advance by email. Some requests are not being answered by DJI. 4)
DJI have rejected requests by commercial pilots for an alternative solution 5)
This cumbersome process is impacting commercial operators. 6)
Owners are unhappy with the changes made by DJI. Some have worked to bypass these restrictions through reverse engineering and modification of DJI software.
Plagiarism
DJI are using open source software components without acknowledging the contributions from the authors, and without complying with GPL license conditions for those components. 7)
As well as being un-lawful, it is simply un-ethical to use someones work without crediting it, or abiding by their license conditions.
Update: 25-Aug-2017 - DJI provided a link to an open source download page. It is not yet known if this is all of the open source code, but this is a VERY positive step by DJI. We are seeking an official statement from DJI if they are willing to publish something on this topic.
Data Leakage
Based on analysis so far, it has been determined that more information than has been previously disclosed is being transmitted externally. 8) 9)
DJI have agreed to create an offline mode.10) However, DJI have not disclosed what data is sent when not in offline mode.
Offline mode is seen as a very positive step. Further comments by DJI on communications in flight when not in offline mode would greatly help to restore trust by DJI clients.
DJI have removed “hot-patching” plugins jsPatch for iOS and Tinker for Android, and will examine other third-party plugins and services in DJI GO and DJI GO 4, and is committed to thoroughly investigating any new third-party plugins before adopting them in response to security concerns raised here.
Back Doors
It has been found that the DJI GO application for both Android and IOS have back-doors allowing DJI to “hot patch” applications in a manner that breaches the rules imposed on DJI by both Google and Apple. 11)
The practice of hot patching essentially allows DJI to totally change the functionality of the DJI go application without the knowledge or consent of a pilot.
Putting this into a different context, hot patching is the equivalent of the avionics software of an aircraft being totally replaced mid flight.
DJI have held true to their word on this point. Analysis so far confirms the removal of JSPatch and Tinker from recent DJI GO updates.
While not technically a back-door, being forced into firmware changes is a concern. An alternate approach might be to guarantee that there are at least two firmware versions available for all products, so that in the event of concerns that are believed to be firmware related, that a pilot will at least have the chance to eliminate firmware as the root cause by downgrading to a different firmware level.
From a change management and risk mitigation perspective, providing no downgrade options at all is a safety hazard.
Censorship
In DJI forums, it is against the rules to criticise DJI, or to talk about reverse engineering of DJI software. 12)
In third party forums sponsored by DJI, similar censorship is taking place for those that discuss topics that are not endorsed by DJI.
DJI have recently removed their “NO UNAUTH MODIFICATIONS” warning in the forums. However, the policy has not changed. Lets hope DJI can continue in this direction, and review their forum rules to encourage a user community, instead of oppressing it.
Safety
DJI has recently rushing out multiple updates and patches to prevent reverse engineering.
These botched changes have caused unstable flight for many pilots. 13) 14)
Mobile phone manufacturers have failed to win a “war of attrition” with the jailbreak community.
Safety will be the loser in the war between DJI and the community.
Position
Control: We believe that DJI does not have jurisdiction to decide where and how pilots fly their aircraft. Local regulators have authority through their laws. DJI systems should not impose mandatory lockouts of aircraft, unless doing so is mandated by the laws of a country where DJI products are being used.
Plagarism: We believe that the use of open source code without attributing that code and complying with license conditions is unethical.
Data leakage: We believe that aircraft control systems need to be dedicated to the process of flying an aircraft, with external connectivity being minimised to allow the application to be free of potential security, privacy, and stability problems. Any remaining network traffic should be publicly documented to help restore community trust.
Back Doors: We believe that aircraft control systems should be free of any back-doors that allow modification of the functionality of those systems without the knowledge or consent of the pilot, including forced updates.
Censorship: We believe that censorship in DJI forums and other DJI sponsored forums is ultimately harmful to DJI and the community. Listening and responding to customer grievances and concerns can only result in a better product that meet the needs of DJI customers.
Safety: We believe that the loser in the arms race with rapidly released patches will be safety. We believe that the best approach is to be collaborative and open in future development, which will allow the community to peer review proposed changes and find problems before they cause safety issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, these are not merely baseless allegations, as they come with notations for the sources.
There are alternatives, both for drones, &/ the firmware with which they are loaded - I leave it to you, to do your own research - you can find that, in the same way I did - no doubt, DJI will not be happy if I post those links here, or any other, to those things with which either make thm look bad, &/ uncomfortable with the exposure.
In case I have stepped too hard on the wrong toes here, & this gets "censored" - deleted - & I get restricted, blocked, or banned, I copied all I've posted here for safekeeping, & will likely post it elsewhere.
Never forget, DJI, the time-old adage: Every complaint, is an opportunity to improve - I leave this ball in your court."
===================================================================
I think it inarguable that DJI makes the finest, at least, consumer-level UAVs.
However, I'm also obligated to point out that DJI is at least in part, backed & funded by the gov't of China - if allowed to compete on a level playing field, no doubt that alternative manufacturers - specifically, those outside of China & other similar controlling & oppressive gov'ts - would soon rush in & offer cost & performance competitive products.
However, that is not the only advantage which DJI & other China-based manufacturers enjoy - the generally lower pay & cost of manufacturing, & some of that also in part due to the relatively poor &/ lack of concern for their environment - there are a number of reasons, some of which I noted above, which give manufacturers in China an unfair advantage, & are major reasons that to the largest extent, they have driven competitors out of a the consumer market.
I did send my
Mini 3 Pro back for repair (some flaws which developed in the camera imager only, & it's never been crashed in nearly 2 years) which was covered under my 2-year Care Refresh plan, which they resolved by simply providing a new replacement drone.
In the notes which came with it, was stated that the firmware was the original default, so, although I have as yet not examined that version, it is nice to know that I can start out fresh, as it were, & provide that to the buyer, & offer them the choice as to which to install, & as for the RC controller that goes with it, there are sources to enable its firmware being rolled bak, & the same for the DJI Assistant 2 desktop tool.
In summary, I highly resent DJI's "Big Brother & the Nanny State" attitude, & they, as product manufacturers, simply have no place nor right to act as an agent of their, nor anyone else's, gov't, including the USA & its FAA.
I've yet to activate & launch the
Mini 4 Pro which I bought early this January of '24 & knowing now, what I've learned since, will be carefully considering the alternatives in which firmware to install, & the same goes for the firmware of everything else related to it..
Rant over.
