DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Hong Kong protests

j.coffield

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
118
Reactions
157
Location
California's Central Valley
I haven't followed the Hong Kong protests that much but I did see some pictures and video. I'm sure the Chinese govt would love to suppress as much news as they could regarding the situation. It got me to thinking about drone video, Could DJI prohibit drone flights in the area with their drones without a firmware update for the App or drone itself? Suppose the Chinese Govt pressured DJI to make it so their drones would not fly. Would they require a firmware update to make that happen?
 
It woudn't need a full firmware update to accomplish that, just an update to the flysafe database. That wouldn't really guarantee that no drone footage got out, since plenty of people have hacked their drones to remove all the restrictions and there are other models that don't incorporate flight restrictions in the first place.
 
DJI is not a regulatory body, therefore they cannot prohibit the use of a UAS in a certain area on their own. All they do is update their software to enforce what the regulatory body’s have placed in to law.
 
DJI is not a regulatory body, therefore they cannot prohibit the use of a UAS in a certain area on their own. All they do is update their software to enforce what the regulatory body’s have placed in to law.

you are aware we are talking about china, right? ;)

Exactly. Any large Chinese company is effectively an arm of the Chinese government. If a government official calls up an exec at DJI and asks them to add a NFZ to their software, the exec has no realistic way to say no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: piashank
I was referring to this quote

Could DJI prohibit drone flights in the area with their drones without a firmware update for the App or drone itself? Suppose the Chinese Govt pressured DJI to make it so their drones would not fly.

Stating that DJI can’t restrict flight just because they feel like it or because they are “pressured”. There has to be some sort of governing body that creates the law/restriction in which DJI would simply update their software to help implement that restriction. DJI does not make laws, therefore cannot restrict their drone from flying over an area just because they want to.
 
I was referring to this quote



Stating that DJI can’t restrict flight just because they feel like it or because they are “pressured”. There has to be some sort of governing body that creates the law/restriction in which DJI would simply update their software to help implement that restriction. DJI does not make laws, therefore cannot restrict their drone from flying over an area just because they want to.

This is absolutely incorrect: DJI can add whatever restrictions they want to their software and there is no requirement that it comes from any actual legislation. There are many current restrictions in their software that don't conform to actual aviation regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WithTheBirds
^^dji management is fully staffed and run and directed by chinese government officials. there is no need to ask or request or consult. they already have their instructions and know how to carry out policy/directions; they are briefed daily and they are loyal to party and country. no way that company (dji) is a separate entity from red china, are you kidding?

ok that was a little bit tongue-in-cheek but you know what i mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawgpilot
This is absolutely incorrect: DJI can add whatever restrictions they want to their software and there is no requirement that it comes from any actual legislation. There are many current restrictions in their software that don't conform to actual aviation regulations.
This doesn’t make sense to me then. I have always been under the impression that they simply implement the restrictions that law makers create. Do you have some examples of current restrictions that are not actually backed by legislation? Not being argumentative, wanting to educate myself. It goes against all logic to me that a private company can restrict flight simply because they make the product. Yes, I understand they have the capability since the write the software, but the legality of it it where I’m coming from.
 
^^dji management is fully staffed and run and directed by chinese government officials. there is no need to ask or request or consult. they already have their instructions and know how to carry out policy/directions; they are briefed daily and they are loyal to party and country. no way that company (dji) is a separate entity from red china, are you kidding?

ok that was a little bit tongue-in-cheek but you know what i mean.
Ok, I get this. But for discussion purposes, let’s refer to a company in the US where there’s a democratic government. Let’s say companies in Napa Valley want to restrict flight in that area. They can’t just call up DJI and ask them to write it in to the software. They would have to petition for a law. Is that not correct?
 
This doesn’t make sense to me then. I have always been under the impression that they simply implement the restrictions that law makers create. Do you have some examples of current restrictions that are not actually backed by legislation? Not being argumentative, wanting to educate myself. It goes against all logic to me that a private company can restrict flight simply because they make the product. Yes, I understand they have the capability since the write the software, but the legality of it it where I’m coming from.

For the most part, everything is "legal" unless there is a law restricting it. So there is no legal prohibition stopping DJI from adding whatever restrictions they want to their software. The only thing limiting that is that they would destroy their position in the market if they needlessly restricted people without good reason.

One example of a restriction that doesn't match current law is that they automatically restrict your altitude if you are in the extended flight path zone coming off nearby airports. These restrictions often extend past any type of controlled airspace so there would be no legal impediment to flying up to 400 feet in those areas, but DJI's software sometimes limits you to flying below that altitude. (for purposes of "safety")

On the converse side, there are plenty of areas where flight is legally prohibited, but DJI's map doesn't reflect those restrictions and will allow you to fly even though you are breaking the law.
 
Ok, I get this. But for discussion purposes, let’s refer to a company in the US where there’s a democratic government. Let’s say companies in Napa Valley want to restrict flight in that area. They can’t just call up DJI and ask them to write it in to the software. They would have to petition for a law. Is that not correct?

They could call up and ask DJI to do that. DJI would almost certainly say no (since they have a financial interest in people being able to freely fly drones), but they aren't required to.
 
They could call up and ask DJI to do that. DJI would almost certainly say no (since they have a financial interest in people being able to freely fly drones), but they aren't required to.
That seems absolutely counterintuitive to the never ending debate in the US of who owns and controls the airspace above ones property. If this were the case, every person would have the right to petition DJI to limit flight above their property. Yet, FAA claims to own everything above your blades of grass and case law claims that you own as much airspace as can be productive to you, the property owner. Then we throw another cog in the wheel and say that the private manufacturer can limit the capability, ultimately restricting what freedom you have left, outside of the many laws and regulations that government agencies have already put in place.

I totally get that a manufacturer can put any limitations on their products that they want. I guess I just always assumed that the limitations programmed in to the software of a UAS were to meet the requirements of the respective governing bodies.
 
Its not at stretch to think that the Chinese govt would ask DJI to restrict flights because "its in their everybody's interest" wink, wink, if you know what I mean. Just like its not a stretch that our own govt would ask google, verizon, ancestry.com etc to provide them with info on American citizens. What I wonder is could they do it without a user initiated update? Like update the flysafe database or your drone wont fly. Then once you do update it it wont fly in the area they want to restrict news from.
 
Wow, it's shocking to see such discussion on this fourm. I never expected this.

I reckon it became new potical correctness that if anything went wrong, it's must be the evil Chinese government?

I think the ground of the OP's hypothetical scenario is the law and regulation. Being the legal government (you like it or not) ruling the land, the Chinese and Hongkong government has every rights to declare temporary or permanent NFZ over the whole HK area. And DJI, as an entity operating under Chinese law and regulation, has to obey.

And is this something difficult to understand? Just as soon as Trump authority put Huawei to the Entity List, dozens of US-based suppliers stopped trading with Huawei. And Flex even went extra length not returning the equipment and materials legally owned by Huawei. And Github decided to block the code repositories of the developers in Iran, Syria and Crimea because Github does business in the US and thus is subject to US trade law.

Again, it's shocking to see such political topic eroding this nice and peaceful forum enjoyed by the drone hobbyists all over the world holding diffierent lives, religions and opinions in harmony.

Please remember, there are always so many different angles to interpret anything. A simple sentence of "You can beat me now" one may see bravery while some may sense provocation.

You may say, a drone footage may exactly provide an objective view on what's going on, then it has to show 360° on every little details at any given moment in order to avoid any misinterpretation. After all, the drones can only do Bird's View, not God's View.
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed the Hong Kong protests that much but I did see some pictures and video. I'm sure the Chinese govt would love to suppress as much news as they could regarding the situation. It got me to thinking about drone video, Could DJI prohibit drone flights in the area with their drones without a firmware update for the App or drone itself? Suppose the Chinese Govt pressured DJI to make it so their drones would not fly. Would they require a firmware update to make that happen?
Why is there always someone creating a Henny Penny story about everything from drones to climate change, maybe we should all just give them more ideas to raise hell and cost us all?
 
the best examples i can think of is a private company seeking to limit their liability. let's use dji and a hypothetical. perhaps the current climate in america is all about privacy and the balance tips in the favor of the individual (i.e private company) over the public good. those 3x cameras on the drone might turn into 2x cameras. led lights option on or off maybe turn into always on. extreme case may be any private land holder who submits a valid request, their property won't be able to be viewed on dji go 4 app camera view (technology permitting). imagine redacted images. all with no laws, no ordnances, no rulings, no regulations, just policy and good practice and the power of public opinion. the drone won't fly unless you have a "full" battery on take off; drone emits a high pitch tone when hovering below 100 feet to alert those nearby....i can even see where your drone would lock up after every 20 hours of flying unless you upload logs and report home with flight data which once validated and approved and you get a return unlock code good for another 20 hours.

if a company is going to warranty your equipment, they might want to keep tabs. if a company thinks unauthorized use may be exacerbated by their careless implementation contributing to the problem, if a company thinks the x-ray feature on the camera can see thru cars and houses (thru windows) then they might take action all without prompting from the government. no recalls yet but a voluntary recall is much better than a ntsb mandatory government ordered recall.

you are mostly correct, the non-federal governments that companies have to be concerned with complying with and staying ahead of is california and new york. cali because they lead with all the crazy laws and they have the biggest consumer base and ny because they say what they mean and mean what they say when it comes to the law and litigation. i bet our current drones can do lots of things we just don't know about but if the right person at dji is smart, they keep this under control but stay ahead of the competition; it's a delicate balance.

the biggest disaster dji has yet to face, their biggest threat comes from a major incident based on social implications. a runaway dji that damages an airplane which ultimately lands safely is just as much a disaster to dji as dji drone code that is discovered sending sensitive information back to red china, probably worse.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,599
Messages
1,554,245
Members
159,603
Latest member
refrigasketscanada