I’m not taking sides, but I do have a question for anyone with legal understanding. I feel like, if I worked for a drone company and wanted to roll out a new feature to block flights close to ‘restricted zones’, then the legal department would throw a fit. I can imagine them saying that the new feature would expose the company if the feature ever failed or didn’t have a complete list of locations to block. It’s better to not have any restrictions than to have some and for them to be incomplete or broken.
I just don’t see how this feature wouldn’t be a major liability to DJI. Am I wrong?
DJI introduced multiple "safety" features then lobbied for regulation making those features mandatory. They were already compliant with the regulations but their competitors weren't. It's a standard regulatory capture play.
Its a common sense feature that most people appreciate. Often a consumer getting a drone for Christmas doesn't know they are near a reserved airspace for a hospital helipad.
If the alternative is getting your product banned, I suspect legal would figure something out.
Given the continuing drone idiocies with the California fires, I would expect a blanket ban coming unless an automated system can instantly comply with FAA airspace restrictions.
> If the alternative is getting your product banned, I suspect legal would figure something out.
I appreciate the response, but it seems the opposite is happening. They have the feature already and are actively rolling it back. So they must believe the feature’s existence is a bigger threat to the company than not having it at all, right?
It could be the feature was so half-baked that it kicked in and dropped a bunch of drones out of the sky and DJI had to cough up refunds. It could be that DJI knows something about upcoming legal issues with the current administration. It could be that Chinese intelligence wants flyovers of restricted airspaces.
DJI isn't "just" a company--it's an arm of the Chinese government. Trying to predict what's happening at the interface between those two is like trying to read tea leaves--only reading tea leaves is likely to be more accurate and consistent.
> So they must believe the feature’s existence is a bigger threat to the company than not having it at all, right?
No, they’re probably simply doing the CCP’s bidding by allowing agents of the CCP, who already are in these countries, to use their drones to collect intelligence, disrupt operations, etc.
This. The zones never have been complete and sometimes to restrictive. I rather have no zones programmed in because I know that I am fully liable anyway.
Cars don't refuse to get into one way streets and it's 100% the drivers fault.
I just don’t see how this feature wouldn’t be a major liability to DJI. Am I wrong?