We Have Not Escaped the DJI Drone Ban! Tuesday March 4, 2025 @ 11:59 pm is the Last Time You Can Protest this Ban!

[DroneSolutions]

"Banning Chinese Drones Will Not Prevent American Made Drones From Spying!
As long as American made drones have cameras and a ½” SD (Memory Card) to store
photos and videos, the ‘potential’ of spying on critical infrastructure will always exist.
Drones don’t spy…people spy using a drone regardless of where they are manufactured. You
would have to ban ALL drones to prevent foreign nationals and American profiteers from
using camera drones to spy." (My nine point argument against banning DJI Drones is attached)

You have until 11:59 pm this Tuesday March 4, 2025 to go Regulations.Gov and click on 'COMMENT' to express your opinion and hopefully stop the ban. You can click on 'DOCUMENT COMMENTS' to see what 450 other DJI/AUTEL drone owners have said why Chinese drones shouldn't be banned. Use your own words. They will ignore duplicates!

I'm sorry for for this late information. I've had a difficult surgery with a long recovery. You may think this a dead issue because we all won the battles to keep the banning of DJI drones out of legislation.

This an end run. This is NOT legislation! This is a Commision that will decide the fate of our DJI/Autel drones. Time is short. It will take you 2-5 minutes to make your voice heard! Only 450 people have commented...it is not enough! Please act!

FAA Part 107 Certified Remote Pilot...Continuous Lift LLC

 

[msinger]

Banning Chinese Drones Will Not Prevent American Made Drones From Spying!

If you've read the proposed rule, you'll notice it makes no mention of trying to prevent Americans from spying. As a result, comments like this will likely be tossed aside.

Here's a summary of the proposed rule:

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public comments on potential regulations concerning unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that involve information and communications technology and services (ICTS) supplied by foreign adversaries. This request is issued under Executive Order (E.O.) 13873, which aims to secure the ICTS supply chain from national security threats.

Key Points:

• Purpose: BIS is evaluating the risks posed by UAS-related ICTS linked to foreign adversaries (e.g., China, Russia) and considering regulatory actions to mitigate potential threats to U.S. national security, ICTS supply chains, and critical infrastructure.
  
  
• Public Input Requested On:
  • Defining UAS for regulatory purposes.
  • Identifying foreign adversary-linked ICTS in UAS that pose security risks.
  • Assessing economic and competitive impacts of potential regulations.
  • Evaluating data collection, storage, and transmission vulnerabilities.
  • Exploring risk mitigation measures or possible exceptions to regulations.
    
    
• Security Concerns: BIS highlights risks including data exfiltration, remote access vulnerabilities, and foreign government control over UAS technologies.
  
  
• Potential Regulatory Actions: Restrictions on UAS components, prohibitions on foreign adversary ICTS, mitigation measures, and new certification requirements.
  
  
• Deadline for Comments: March 4, 2025 (via regulations.gov, email, or other specified methods).

BIS encourages industry stakeholders, experts, and the public to provide feedback on these issues to help shape potential future regulations.

 

[Cafguy]

The FAA has integrated drones into the National Airspace with Drone Remote Identification. All drones over 8.8 oz manufactured anywhere in the world after December 16, 2022, broadcast their digital license plate the
moment they are turned on indicating their location, altitude, speed, time stamp, and owner’s identification all of which can be displayed on phone or tablet app.
From short distances this is true. YET FAA officials do not posses these apps and as far as I know there is NO government contract to purchase them. RID cannot be read from the airports control tower and is really no better than an FAA official simply witnessing you Flying in person.

Police, the FAA, or any citizen can use a free phone app called ‘Drone Scanner’ by Dronetag that can detect and display on a map the drone’s Remote ID broadcast along with its Latitude &. Longitude, User ID, Drone Serial Number, Distance, Altitude, and Speed for law enforcement purposes and detection around critical infrastructure.

Sure any citizen can But for a Person to do it in their duties as a public official isnt so easy. If you were to be arrested in such a way your attorney would immediately want to know how reliable these apps are and would want the results of any studies that were made on them before they were adopted as a Law enforcement tool. Therefor NO Official would use these apps "officially"

It is un-American to make DJI prove they are NOT using their drones owned by Americans to capture and spy on American infrastructure. How do you prove a negative? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the
US alleges that DJI is spying and sharing this data with the Chinese government, then let them prove it!

We all know these Drones Don't spy on anything ( and so does the Gov.) BUT Certain people with hills of Money and lots of influence Want to build and sell Drones too....and the only way to compete in pricing is scare us "sheep" into Regulating Chinese Products and paying more for American Drones.
I Hope they read and take your letter into consideration BUT I fear you are screaming at a wall.........A very money hungry wall.
As Drones become more and more what we all don't want them to become, Regulations on their use and even ownership will become more and more untenable and we will unfortunately see a lot of businesses like yours go under in the near future because of this.
I wish you success in weathering this storm!

 

[Droning on and on...]

@Cafguy I'm confused as to who's speaking in your post between the normal, italic, and bold paragraphs. I'm guessing a previous post that some of this appeared in was edited or deleted...

 

[PHZ]

I have responded with the attached letter, making some of your points (I read it after I wrote mine or I could have saved myself some time.)
Members, feel free to use or alter this letter to respond to this proposed rulemaking. It is important to fight this for all on this Forum who reside in the U.S

 

[Cafguy]

@Cafguy I'm confused as to who's speaking in your post between the normal, italic, and bold paragraphs. I'm guessing a previous post that some of this appeared in was edited or deleted...

Just commenting in bold on some of their points in the letter I don't think a total BAN is in the cards, but I expect lots more regulation.

 

[DroneSolutions]

If you've read the proposed rule, you'll notice it makes no mention of trying to prevent Americans from spying. As a result, comments like this will likely be tossed aside.

Here's a summary of the proposed rule:

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public comments on potential regulations concerning unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that involve information and communications technology and services (ICTS) supplied by foreign adversaries. This request is issued under Executive Order (E.O.) 13873, which aims to secure the ICTS supply chain from national security threats.

Key Points:

• Purpose: BIS is evaluating the risks posed by UAS-related ICTS linked to foreign adversaries (e.g., China, Russia) and considering regulatory actions to mitigate potential threats to U.S. national security, ICTS supply chains, and critical infrastructure.
  
  
• Public Input Requested On:
  • Defining UAS for regulatory purposes.
  • Identifying foreign adversary-linked ICTS in UAS that pose security risks.
  • Assessing economic and competitive impacts of potential regulations.
  • Evaluating data collection, storage, and transmission vulnerabilities.
  • Exploring risk mitigation measures or possible exceptions to regulations.
    
• Security Concerns: BIS highlights risks including data exfiltration, remote access vulnerabilities, and foreign government control over UAS technologies.
  
  
• Potential Regulatory Actions: Restrictions on UAS components, prohibitions on foreign adversary ICTS, mitigation measures, and new certification requirements.
  
  
• Deadline for Comments: March 4, 2025 (via regulations.gov, email, or other specified methods).

BIS encourages industry stakeholders, experts, and the public to provide feedback on these issues to help shape potential future regulations.

You are correct, "...the proposed rule, you'll notice it makes no mention of trying to prevent Americans from spying".

But, I didn't say that or certainly didn't mean that. I obviously didn't do a good job of making the argument that banning DJI to prevent foreign 'video surveillance' or 'data exfiltration', etc is useless. It is useless because an American made drone can do the same 'video surveillance' or 'data exfiltration', once DJI is banned. Banning DJI isn't the Silver Bullet.

I was just saying that after they ban DJI, there is still a bullet in the gun. An American made drone can do anything and everything a DJI drone can do as long as there are bad people around to misuse the American drone for nefarious purposes. My comments about American made drones was just pointing out that banning DJI doesn't achieve their security objectives while capable American made drones are or will be available. So why ban DJI? Mitigate the risk Chinese drones present like we have tried to mitigate the risks automobiles present.

Hopefully BIS will interpret my arguments as intended and not throw them out. I guess I should have paid more attention in Rhetoric 101!

Also, I shouldn't have used the word, 'spying'. But if you look at your document above under Security Concerns some of the goals of spying are: "...data exfiltration, remote access vulnerabilities, and foreign government control over UAS technologies. I should have kept to the language used above. OR....

I also should have used the words, ‘video surveillance’ or ‘video surveillance services’ as mentioned in H.R. 2864 Countering CCP Drones Act, proposing to add DJI to the ‘covered list’, instead of the word, ‘spying’. If passed the FCC could not have approved new equipment from DJI. The goal of of H.R 2864 and all others to follow were to ban DJI products to one degree or another. Fortunately, none of the legislative attempts were passed.

Hence, we have BIS. I am encouraged by the thoroughness of their process in seeking feedback from a host of sources and the various kinds of information sought in their decision making process. Hopefully, they will arrive at a favorable decision.

 

[DroneSolutions]

@Cafguy I'm confused as to who's speaking in your post between the normal, italic, and bold paragraphs. I'm guessing a previous post that some of this appeared in was edited or deleted...

So sorry...it was all me speaking. I was too cute by half. I was just trying to bring more attention to certain parts of my text. Whenever, I see text style options, it triggers the worse in my human nature.

 

[DroneSolutions]

Just commenting in bold on some of their points in the letter I don't think a total BAN is in the cards, but I expect lots more regulation.

Yes, I certainly hope you are right about there not being a total ban. I was trying to get others to respond. My business and many others are on the line. As I mentioned in another reply, I am impressed by BIS's methodology. It isn't proposing anything at this point. It's just seeking all the things necessary for an intelligent decision.

 

[DroneSolutions]

I have responded with the attached letter, making some of your points (I read it after I wrote mine or I could have saved myself some time.)
Members, feel free to use or alter this letter to respond to this proposed rulemaking. It is important to fight this for all on this Forum who reside in the U.S.

The FAA has integrated drones into the National Airspace with Drone Remote Identification. All drones over 8.8 oz manufactured anywhere in the world after December 16, 2022, broadcast their digital license plate the
moment they are turned on indicating their location, altitude, speed, time stamp, and owner’s identification all of which can be displayed on phone or tablet app.
From short distances this is true. YET FAA officials do not posses these apps and as far as I know there is NO government contract to purchase them. RID cannot be read from the airports control tower and is really no better than an FAA official simply witnessing you Flying in person.

Police, the FAA, or any citizen can use a free phone app called ‘Drone Scanner’ by Dronetag that can detect and display on a map the drone’s Remote ID broadcast along with its Latitude &. Longitude, User ID, Drone Serial Number, Distance, Altitude, and Speed for law enforcement purposes and detection around critical infrastructure.

Sure any citizen can But for a Person to do it in their duties as a public official isnt so easy. If you were to be arrested in such a way your attorney would immediately want to know how reliable these apps are and would want the results of any studies that were made on them before they were adopted as a Law enforcement tool. Therefor NO Official would use these apps "officially"

It is un-American to make DJI prove they are NOT using their drones owned by Americans to capture and spy on American infrastructure. How do you prove a negative? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the
US alleges that DJI is spying and sharing this data with the Chinese government, then let them prove it!
We all know these Drones Don't spy on anything ( and so does the Gov.) BUT Certain people with hills of Money and lots of influence Want to build and sell Drones too....and the only way to compete in pricing is scare us "sheep" into Regulating Chinese Products and paying more for American Drones.
I Hope they read and take your letter into consideration BUT I fear you are screaming at a wall.........A very money hungry wall.
As Drones become more and more what we all don't want them to become, Regulations on their use and even ownership will become more and more untenable and we will unfortunately see a lot of businesses like yours go under in the near future because of this.
I wish you success in weathering this storm!

I agree. Very few law enforcement personnel would ever take the time to use such a drone detection app. They have so many higher law enforcement priorities. To be honest, the Drone Scanner app is not very effective if you go to the App store and read the reviews including their range as someone else pointed out. I was looking to fire as many bullets as I could. It was my weakest argument. I probably shouldn't have used it. I wrote my post in the wee hours of the morning lacking discretion...at least that's what I'm going with...;>)

 

[DroneSolutions]

I have responded with the attached letter, making some of your points (I read it after I wrote mine or I could have saved myself some time.)
Members, feel free to use or alter this letter to respond to this proposed rulemaking. It is important to fight this for all on this Forum who reside in the U.S

On the contrary, I thought your response was much more detailed. It also brought a historical and statistical perspective. There was very little duplication and you said it better than I did. Well done!

 

[PHZ]

On the contrary, I thought your response was much more detailed. It also brought a historical and statistical perspective. There was very little duplication and you said it better than I did. Well done!

Thank you. I penned this quickly so I am glad it didn’t come across that way.