Wish I had thought of this before

[mavic3usa]

Brendan Carr is no friend of ours, and could shut down our DJI drones in 30 days easily. We all better enjoy our sport quietly in the USA, or risk losing all DJI drones for good.

I don't know him but he does appear to be spiteful and petty.

Brendan Carr Says Destroying Consumer Protection, Media Consolidation Rules, And Corporate Oversight Will Be Great For Everyone

Trump FCC boss Brendan Carr was recently hauled before Congress to discuss his numerous, often illegal abuses of FCC authority. The hearing mostly fixated on Carr’s failed, clumsy attempt to …

www.techdirt.com

 

[Etbrown4]

Through the FCCs official words, principally banning new DJI and Autel drones and components it seems clear that our existing drones are unaffected.

However, there's this: "In October, the FCC voted to grant itself the authority to retroactively ban electronic devices that were already cleared for sale, if their makers were later deemed national security risks, a move widely seen as targeting Chinese companies like DJI."

All the more reason for wise drone owners in the US to quietly go on with our hobby or business and make no waves.

 

[Meta4]

Through the FCCs official words, principally banning new DJI and Autel drones and components it seems clear that our existing drones are unaffected.
...
All the more reason for wise drone owners in the US to quietly go on with our hobby or business and make no waves.

The government has banned futureDJI models, because of an assumed (and completely fictitious) security threat.
That they have done nothing at all about existing DJI models confirms that there is no security threat.
It's preposterous that devices not yet produced have been determined to be a threat to national security, when existing and similar devices are deemed to be quite safe.

 

[mavic3usa]

The government has banned futureDJI models, because of an assumed (and completely fictitious) security threat.
That they have done nothing at all about existing DJI models confirms that there is no security threat.
It's preposterous that devices not yet produced have been determined to be a threat to national security, when existing and similar devices are deemed to be quite safe.

The government has never said existing and similar devices are deemed to be quite safe.

This is why we lose the battles, we're being outplayed.

 

[Etbrown4]

1. No one in the drone community in the US has expoused the view that the ban has ANY relationship to US national securrity.

2. Likewise I don't believe there's any US drone owner who believes that banning our existing drones might actually be warranted.

If points one and two are accurate, it seems clear that nothing about the ban is fact based. There seems no connection to the truth or what's fair or right, however point 1 is US federal law today.

The fact is that Brendan Carr and his FCC have granted themselves the power to also ban existing drones, though that has NOT been threatened. While there might be a credible legal case to be made against all FCC actions in this regard, it seems abundantly clear that US drone owners are best off quietly going about their drone hobby or businesss, at least for now.

Perhaps one day some great Philadelphia lawyer might come to our rescue and successfully challenge all of it.

 

[anotherlab]

1. No one in the drone community in the US has expoused the view that the ban has ANY relationship to US national securrity.

2. Likewise I don't believe there's any US drone owner who believes that banning our existing drones might actually be warranted.

If points one and two are accurate, it seems clear that nothing about the ban is fact based. There seems no connection to the truth or what's fair or right, however point 1 is US federal law today.

Points 1 & 2 have no connection with the language in FY 2025 NDAA or the recent decision posted by the FCC.

 

[mavic3usa]

1. No one in the drone community in the US has expoused the view that the ban has ANY relationship to US national securrity.

No one in the drone community has the access or the ability to looking into national security issues so we we believe or not is irrelevant to the facts. I don't believe it has any relationship but I'm not yet ready to declare that my government doesn't know any more about the situation than I do; they might know something and not telling us.

2. Likewise I don't believe there's any US drone owner who believes that banning our existing drones might actually be warranted.

Unfortunately it's not just drone owners who get a say. Congress represents everyone in America, not just the drone owners. With half of the drone community remaining silent or completely supporting the government with whatever they do (we have member here who do that in some way), it's no wonder we don't have a voice. I would guess that more than half of the People either want banned drones or don't care so we lost....and we lost big. Why? Because in the past, we didn't believe it could happen. We never demanded accountability or transparency and we allowed our government to go unchecked and unchallenged by passing feel good legislation and target the few rogue flyers who didn't represent the community with ridiculous laws that painted the hobby with a broad brush. The few of us who are trying to protest, redress, or push back in our own little way were told to stand down.... "it's not all the bad, it's for everyone's safety (until it's not). The government (the last administration) is fair and uninterested in drones and Congress makes the rules....no one else has a say." And then along comes the next unhinged administration.

That's why we are caught flat-footed when these rulings come down and even today, we are being snookered into believing it's all good you can keep whatever you have, our new laws only impact future stuff you've never seen or heard of. We gave ourselves the right to ban past drones but we have no intention of doing that. Nothing says doomed like the total absence of the rule of law, we can't even go to court on these issues.

 

[hank970]

No one in the drone community has the access or the ability to looking into national security issues so we we believe or not is irrelevant to the facts. I don't believe it has any relationship but I'm not yet ready to declare that my government doesn't know any more about the situation than I do; they might know something and not telling us.


Unfortunately it's not just drone owners who get a say. Congress represents everyone in America, not just the drone owners. With half of the drone community remaining silent or completely supporting the government with whatever they do (we have member here who do that in some way), it's no wonder we don't have a voice. I would guess that more than half of the People either want banned drones or don't care so we lost....and we lost big. Why? Because in the past, we didn't believe it could happen. We never demanded accountability or transparency and we allowed our government to go unchecked and unchallenged by passing feel good legislation and target the few rogue flyers who didn't represent the community with ridiculous laws that painted the hobby with a broad brush. The few of us who are trying to protest, redress, or push back in our own little way were told to stand down.... "it's not all the bad, it's for everyone's safety (until it's not). The government (the last administration) is fair and uninterested in drones and Congress makes the rules....no one else has a say." And then along comes the next unhinged administration.

That's why we are caught flat-footed when these rulings come down and even today, we are being snookered into believing it's all good you can keep whatever you have, our new laws only impact future stuff you've never seen or heard of. We gave ourselves the right to ban past drones but we have no intention of doing that. Nothing says doomed like the total absence of the rule of law, we can't even go to court on these issues.

Drone owners could go to the courts if they were to band together, file a class-action suit, demand discovery, and cover legal and other fees. Drone owners who are 18 years of age or older can also go to the polls and vote.

 

[Meta4]

The government has never said existing and similar devices are deemed to be quite safe.

Your government has banned future foreign drones becaue they might be a threat to national security, but said it's fine to fly or buy drones with existing FCC approvals.
If they had any information that showed they posed a threat to national security, they would not have done that.

 

[mavic3usa]

Your government has banned future foreign drones becaue they might be a threat to national security, but said it's fine to fly or buy drones with existing FCC approvals.
If they had any information that showed they posed a threat to national security, they would not have done that.

They didn't say existing drones are not a threat.
They said at this time there is no further action that they plan to take against whatever drones you have now.
That's code for "look over here while we put our plans into action."
Savvy Americans know the playbook.....we've seen this before.

The government doesn't yet have its confiscation details sorted out the timing for a ban on all existing drones is not good for now. They are lacking one more piece to the puzzle....a false flag.

 

[MS Coast]

They didn't say existing drones are not a threat.
They said at this time there is no further action that they plan to take against whatever drones you have now.
That's code for "look over here while we put our plans into action."
Savvy Americans know the playbook.....we've seen this before.

The government doesn't yet have its confiscation details sorted out the timing for a ban on all existing drones is not good for now. They are lacking one more piece to the puzzle....a false flag.

• Another government code that you've somehow deciphered.
• Another insight that only savvy Americans can understand.
• Another impending confiscation scare.
• And another secret government plot, this time a false-flag incident horrible enough to enable a complete drone ban.

If you truly believe that big government is coming to confiscate everyone's drones, isn't it odd that you've just recently bought multiple drones that just sit unused inside their plastic-wrapped boxes. Where's the logic in that?

Please just fly a drone and tell us about that, instead of preaching imagined doom, gloom, government plots, illegal corporate schemes, and drone confiscation.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you truly believe that big government is coming to confiscate everyone's drones, isn't it odd that you've just recently bought multiple drones that just sit unused inside their plastic-wrapped boxes. Where's the logic in that?

The drones that I have still in the box are backup in case of a rainy day and for future use.
The drones that I fly on a daily/weekly basis are up and running and in use pretty constantly.
I have equal amounts of both.

That logic doesn't have to make sense to you but you have to accept it; you don't have any choice. You do you and I'll do what's best for me.

Please just fly a drone and tell us about that, instead of preaching imagined doom, gloom, government plots, illegal corporate schemes, and drone confiscation.

No thanks. But I talk about my drone experiences both flying and otherwise almost on a daily basis. However I'm not naive and I say what's on my mind, I realize it's sometimes hard to hear. It's up to you to listen to whatever you want to hear but if it's not, let me know and I'll tell you what you need to listen to. Either way is fine by me.

 

[anotherlab]

Drone owners could go to the courts if they were to band together, file a class-action suit, demand discovery, and cover legal and other fees.

A class action suit for what? What would the discovery demand be for what evidence?

Drone owners who are 18 years of age or older can also go to the polls and vote.

The rider that required a security audit for DJI in the FY 2025 NDAA was passed with broad bipartisan support by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

 

[anotherlab]

They didn't say existing drones are not a threat.

That's about the only thing that I agree with.

From https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-1086A1.pdf:

UAS produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons and should be included on the FCC’s Covered List, unless the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security makes a specific determination to the FCC that a given UAS or class of UAS does not pose such risks and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons and should be included on the FCC’s Covered List, unless the Department of War or the Department of Homeland Security makes a specific determination to the FCC that a given UAS critical component does not pose such risks

Savvy Americans know the playbook.....we've seen this before.

And then we go off the reservation....

The government doesn't yet have its confiscation details sorted out the timing for a ban on all existing drones is not good for now. They are lacking one more piece to the puzzle....a false flag.

You are assuming a level of competence and foresight in the FCC chairman, traits that he has already shown that he does not possess.

 

[MS Coast]

That logic doesn't have to make sense to you but you have to accept it; you don't have any choice. You do you and I'll do what's best for me.

Ok, I'll accept your logic that the best defense for you against government confiscation of your drones is to buy more drones and put them on the shelf unused.

 

[mavic3usa]

Ok, I'll accept your logic that the best defense for you against government confiscation of your drones is to buy more drones and put them on the shelf unused.

Not the "best" defense but one of my many options. I have enough drones for now but with all this excessive government activity, my strategy is to buy up everything (not just drones but accessories and parts) you can buy now while you still can. I'm a prepper; you wouldn't understand.

 

[Meta4]

I'm a prepper; you wouldn't understand.

That explains a lot

 

[hank970]

A class action suit for what? What would the discovery demand be for what evidence?



The rider that required a security audit for DJI in the FY 2025 NDAA was passed with broad bipartisan support by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

Discovery would demand any documented evidence amassed by the government that drones of Chinese manufacture pose a threat to national security. Where's the proof that the CCP or any other foreign adversary has access to data collected by our drones other than imagery -- like my aerial photos of Christmas lighting or interesting (to me) landscapes-- that we willingly post via public media? That red herring was the purported motivation behind all of this nonsense.

Granted, a bad actor could use a Chinese-made drone to photograph a sensitive site. But that's a fault of the operator, not the drone. Show us any and all proof that drones, not violators, have posed a threat to national security. The same logic applies to the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, gun ownership has been vigorously defended by congressional majorities and by the courts, even after senseless mass shootings. . How many times have you heard someone of authority say, "Guns don't commit crimes; people do."

Prosecute bad actors who use drones and guns in nefarious ways to the fullest extent of the law and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[anotherlab]

Discovery would demand any documented evidence amassed by the government that drones of Chinese manufacture pose a threat to national security.

That would not be applicable here. The 1709 requirement was for a security audit to be performed by an authorized agency. Failure to have a completed audit would trigger adding the named companies to the Covered List.

IANAL, but...
A challenge to an FCC ban like this would almost certainly be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in federal court. The APA is used to perform judicial reviews of actions taken by federal agencies.

Typical claims would be that the FCC action was:

• Arbitrary and capricious
• Not supported by substantial evidence
• Beyond its statutory authority
• Taken without required procedures

One can make a good argument that all of that would apply to the FCC's decision. One could also argue that it also applies to the Trump Tariffs. That is before the Supreme Court now.

Under the APA, courts do not conduct a fresh fact-finding inquiry. The court will review the materials that the agency (in this case, the FCC) relied on to make its decision. The rules of discovery that would be used for a civil case would not be available here.

Granted, a bad actor could use a Chinese-made drone to photograph a sensitive site. But that's a fault of the operator, not the drone. Show us any and all proof that drones, not violators, have posed a threat to national security.

That was never the issue (real or imagined), it was the fear that the images would be transmitted back to China.

The same logic applies to the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, gun ownership has been vigorously defended by congressional majorities and by the courts, even after senseless mass shootings. . How many times have you heard someone of authority say, "Guns don't commit crimes; people do."

Whataboutism is not a useful legal strategy.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think I might have said it before but I should probably repeat my thoughts on the federal courts and using that as a route to seek a remedy to this crazy situation. The system is broken and while the judicial branch is in 3rd place behind the Congress et al, there won't be a justice should we go that route. Too many courts are afraid of "the boss" and their decisions end up being whatever he wants. Might be a good idea to keep our powder dry for now and save it for when the real shtf.