Yes.
However, the answer to this is not complaining and resisting means to prevent it, which is what most here seem to do.
You see, there are always going to be idiots like this. We can't wish them away. If we don't support and help DJI and others in implementing sophisticated technology to thwart the idiots flying where they shouldn't be, we'll wind up with far more onerous solutions like, no consumer sUAVs at all.
The answer to this is exactly what DJI is doing: Selective, fine-grained restriction in places where we all agree no one should be flying.
I'd rather my aircraft be electronically be prevented from flying in very specific places, with the frustration of having to deal with mistakes, errors, etc. in the database, than not have it at all. Errors can be fixed.
So far, I haven't been negatively affected. The nearest NFZ to me is the Watsonville Airport, and the red zone where I couldn't fly at all is absolutely proper and reasonable, the yellow self-unlocking also is quite reasonable. Since I don't fly in that area anyway, it hasn't been an issue.
I know others are having problems, unlocking not working, being in an NFZ when they weren't before, abandoned airstrips showing as NFZs, and on and on. If it were happening to me, I'd be upset.
Still, these are properly framed as growing pains with this new technology. In my opinion, what DJI is doing is very beneficial for us, not damaging; it's keeping us flying. The alternative is far more draconian, and as public noise complaining about drones increases, I feel DJI aircraft will be well positioned to stay in the air.
I can certainly see regulations in the future imposing draconian rules on drones that DO NOT have the selective restriction capability DJI is engineering in to their products. Those with these capabilities will have much more freedom.
