Slashdot Mirror

DJI Demands Withdrawal Of Misleading Drone Collision Video: https://www.dji.com/newsroom/n...

If the drone never lands how do you re-arm them?

They carry cameras, not weapons.

And reconnaissance drones already have extended time on target capabilities.

Big high altitude recon drones are too expensive to assign one to every outpost, convoy, or patrol.

Every time one crashes some neo-barb gets access to the technology.

The tech is already available on-line to anyone with a credit card: dji.com

For drone tech, the military is trailing the COTS/hobby market.

COTS= Commercial off the shelf (an ERMA)

ERMA= Easily recognizable military acronym

Is this the source code you're complaining about them not releasing?

https://www.dji.com/mobile/ope...

https://github.com/MAVProxyUse...

I have a hard time understanding some EU initiatives. For example, encouraging immigration into EU from the 3rd world countries while nothing is organized in place. So that people have to sleep in parks, walk over the mountain passes without proper equipment, etc.

The EU isn't inviting in people from 3rd world countries, it's simply the easiest place to be smuggled into due to a large land border and the Mediterranean. Most of the refugees are legit, coming from war torn countries (in no small part to US and EU actions in the region). The EU is trying to organise things but they're facing opposition from ultra-nationalist elements within the EU.

Its similar to the US/Mexico border but about 500 times larger.

Or dumbing down the DJI quad-copters. The range of the DJI Spark in the US (FCC) is 2000 meters. In the EU (EC) it is 500 meters https://www.dji.com/products/c... . In reality it is even less, at about 200 meters the warnings began to appear on the screen that the video signal is too weak.

This is because in the EU you're not permitted to lie in advertising. DJI were caught doing this (by the FCC first) about the range of their drones but the FCC didn't prosecute them. The EC did, DJI decided to be dicks about it and put in the warnings, IIRC they're easy to bypass.

I have a hard time understanding some EU initiatives. For example, encouraging immigration into EU from the 3rd world countries while nothing is organized in place. So that people have to sleep in parks, walk over the mountain passes without proper equipment, etc.

Or dumbing down the DJI quad-copters. The range of the DJI Spark in the US (FCC) is 2000 meters. In the EU (EC) it is 500 meters https://www.dji.com/products/c... . In reality it is even less, at about 200 meters the warnings began to appear on the screen that the video signal is too weak.

OK, I could understand 1500 meters, 1000 meters, but why make it practically unusable?

So I would not be surprised if they make the Amason and Goggle unusable either.

Citation needed, and no, the US Army's claims that lack supporting evidence do not count - especially given they generally include the word "may".

Sure, DJI is definitely doing *some* data collection (as are most of the action cam/drone systems, either directly through the device or through on-line accounts associated with it) because they tell you so, but they're also claiming to be actively taking steps to improve enduser privacy and have blocked third party apps that have been caught doing so. Like MS Windows' telemetry, it's 100% clear that some data is being collected, but the actual extent of it seems to be based mostly speculation and rumour rather than fact and I've yet to see any really definitive articles that quantify with actual proof the scope of what is being collected and what countermeasures a privacy concious user might take to minimise the "damage" (and any operational compromises those countermeasures might entail). For instance, you claim that DJI is tracking location data in realtime using your phone, which is certainly possible, but the handset-drone comms uses the controller radio transmitter and the phone is USB tethered, so you should be able to put the phone into flight mode and simulate being in an area with no reception - or even just *be* in an area with no reception to prevent that from happening - unless they retrospectively upload it later, but again, I've not seen any definitive articles with evidence to back this up.

So, for anyone considering a drone purchase or that already has one and is getting concerned about the levels of tracking, does anyone have any decent links on this?

But the DJI is an index measuring the value of the stocks in companies followed by the index.

That would be the DJIA . (Its ticker isn't "DJI" either. It's "^DJI" with a caret at the beginning.) It's the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

DJI is Da-Jiang Innovations Science and Technology Company, Ltd. They make fancy quad-copters with decent-ish cameras mounted on them and sell them for way too much money. They're a subsidiary of iFlight Technology Company, Ltd.

Maybe someone was pointing/testing a GPS or other signal jammer in the vicinity. On a side note, I'm not sure why anyone would purchase a drone from a manufacturer that controls where you can fly it. http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo...

Not made up:

http://www.dji.com/newsroom/ne...

I stand corrected. DJI's 'Newsroom' is where I started my search, but I missed what you found.

Not made up:

"If this activation process is not performed, the aircraft will not have access to the correct geospatial information and flight functions for that region, and its operations will be restricted if you update the upcoming firmware: Live camera streaming will be disabled, and flight will be limited to a 50-meter (164-foot) radius up to 30 meters (98 feet) high."

http://www.dji.com/newsroom/ne...

Why is an article in The Sun linked on the main page?

Surely the same information (from a press release, right?) is available somewhere else. . . To save you the trouble of reading my entire post, I can say that I FOUND NOTHING LIKE THIS SUN ARTICLE'S IMPLICATION anywhere. It is the usual for the Sun – making shit up to fill the pages.

I wasted a good bit of time looking for a verifying source. Nothing. The closest I can find is that for purchasers in New Zealand, the product warranty is not valid unless they sign up with DJI. Not even close to the article's statements.

DJI will not be able to provide you with service under this warranty if you refuse to provide your information or do not wish us to transfer your information to our agent or contractor.

There is noting to find. If you feel like wasting your time as well, then click here to read their After-sales Policies.

Why is an article in The Sun linked on the main page?

Surely the same information (from a press release, right?) is available somewhere else. . . To save you the trouble of reading my entire post, I can say that I FOUND NOTHING LIKE THIS SUN ARTICLE'S IMPLICATION anywhere. It is the usual for the Sun – making shit up to fill the pages.

I wasted a good bit of time looking for a verifying source. Nothing. The closest I can find is that for purchasers in New Zealand, the product warranty is not valid unless they sign up with DJI. Not even close to the article's statements.

DJI will not be able to provide you with service under this warranty if you refuse to provide your information or do not wish us to transfer your information to our agent or contractor.

There is noting to find. If you feel like wasting your time as well, then click here to read their After-sales Policies.

... IT IS A BAD IDEA TO FLY ... DRONES CLOSE TO CIVILIAN AIRLINES...

This is exactly my point. It is against regulations to fly an UAS near an airport. Everybody knows it. Besides it is not allowed to fly it higher than 150 meters (120 m in the USA).

The popular DJI Phantom 3 & 4 quad-copters will not even take-off near an airport (also a stadium and public buildings) due to the no-fly zone internal GPS/GLONASS mechanism: http://www.dji.com/flysafe/no-...

So I would like to see an evidence, a photo or a video, etc. not just words. There are so many web-cameras at airports.

unless the drone provides constant feedback to its controller about its altitude relative to takeoff point (which some may, but I don't know of any)

Take a look at the flight telemetry from his drone. It always displays height above takeoff point. I bet most drones do that.

That is a software limit which can be changed.

Maximum flight altitude and radius limits may be changed in the DJI Pilot app. Be aware that the maximum flight altitude cannot exceed 1640 feet (500 meters).

Other drones may have different limits.

That drone has a flight ceiling of 120 meters above the takeoff point, which is nearly 400 feet. Navigable airspace is typically 500+ feet above the ground, except very close to airports.

... we do something about it?...

I do not argue with you that it's better be safe than sorry and we work on making airspace safe. I am piloting RC aircraft, both fixed-wing and multi-rotor. My RC aircraft was attacked by birds quite a few times. Sometimes a bird or a flock of birds can be unbelievably mean and aggressive.

Bird-strikes happen thousands times per year. Unlike a bird, an UAV can be constructed from frangible materials. The FAA works on it with drone producers. In my DJI Phantom 3 and F450 I set the maximum altitude to 150 meters (a regulation in my parts) above ground. It does not fly higher; a message "aircraft reached maximum altitude" appears on the screen.

If I just hear a sound of a manned aircraft, a plane or helicopter, I land immediately and disconnect the battery.

DJI Pantom 3 and the new Phantom 4 cannot take off in no-fly areas: http://www.dji.com/flysafe/no-...

My argument was that there was no clear-cut proven collision of an UAV with manned aircraft yet in the whole world. As for flying an UAV above 150 meters (or 400 feet in the USA) it is clearly against the law, let alone flying near an airport, above a stadium full of spectators, etc. I disapprove it myself. And RC pilots are well informed about these rules.

http://www.dji.com/product/pha...

Look towards the bottom of the page
"If the Phantom 2 and its controller are disconnected during flight, the system’s failsafe protection will activate, automatically telling and if the signal is good enough, the Phantom 2 to return home and land automatically."
A "drone" by its very definition has the capability to fly itself, if this thing went out of control simply because it lost connection to the remote control it was not a drone.

Some drones do this automatically. For example, the most popular one: http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca...

Show me a camera that can be carried by a drone of that size and take photos of a person 200ft below with good enough image quality to perv off.

You have no idea what the weight limitations or limitations on small size optics are for this application, do you?

Not sure what "that size" is - can't find a reference point, however:
Under US$1000 and sample pics
I'm sure someone out there could fap to that.....

The chain of evidence is destroyed. The cops let the owner take the device home with him. As such, his "evidence" will not be of any value in court. The height will be judged to be as high as the witnesses claim.

WRONG! That would be in a criminal case. The drone operator is bringing civil charges and his altitude evidence would be admissible there. It may still need to be verified, and I do think that the altitude will be adjusted due to it being measured from sea level not starting ground level. GPS does not work that way and the DJI Phantom 3 does not have a barometric altimeter. This may also explain why the shooter is only being charged by the state with mischief and gun discharge offenses and not destruction of property.

Detection of a drone is much like viewing the sky. It's nearly impossible to spot something.

Unless there's a RF tag, standard audio config (common prop pitch), visual tag, or something that the vendors add to their drones and is a well known... i.e. a standard, the only way to detect drones are by intelligent multisensor systems. Humans are a great example... and that means time consuming, very expensive and very complex. And they'll (like humans) still have false positives on order of 20% or more. Currently anyone can change the above parameters, there is no standard. It's no different from an off-road car--you can basically go anywhere. Where as a typical car, you can't (must use highway system) and it's illegal to modify w/parts deemed off-road. A standard and framework is in place and the traffic cops focus on the 2% of folks that put illegal parts on their cars to go off-road...

As a drone researcher and now looking into this detection problem, now [illegally] popular over some of the most visited entertainment spots around the world, there's 2 aspects to consider: detection and countermeasures. Detection is somewhat well known, there's active research in the military field. But again false positives are a huge problem and why manned flight uses deterrents instead (i.e. instead of detecting birds, use audio deterrents & scare them away). Countermeasures is a whole other problem: so far all solutions either remove power (falling drone--not good), take over control--aka YOU assume legal responsibility (not good), or trap it with a net which again you are responsible to getting it to the ground safely (not good). The vendors can add some deterrent mechanism, much like the mobile phone industry can locate you via police warrant, but that means we need to ensure the firm/software does what it says--a certification or standard is needed. Likely another reason they haven't--they would too assume legal responsibility if the failsafe... failed. Vendors are currently all about fun features and applications. Safety/security has taken a back seat unless you're homeland security. And a lot of these solutions are not well tested, and really addressing edge cases or closed environments. The military solutions don't work well--they typically don't consider collateral damage.

The drone industry is pretty much in the early Internet days, pre-netscape, more like usenet. Standards need to be created and that will block out 98% of the current drone violators. Then you can let the security guys focus on the 2% "professionals" and everyone will be happy vs paranoid.

It's really no different from manned flight issues (someone taking over a plane)... except it much harder as the UAVs are smaller, more agile, and in my cases-- fully autonomous. Considering we can do two-button-touch "launch, run, land"... on multiple UAVs at the same time--yes, we are entering a brave new world folks.

"I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal."

  How often do you fly in uncontrolled airspace at less than 800' agl without major focus on your field of travel? Because if something "flies through your window at 140mph" in uncontrolled airspace, I would have to blame that on pilot error. And, surely that something could not be a DJI Quadcopter because their flight control systems won't allow function in ANY airports controlled airspace (much less approach path). In addition, within a 5 mile ring they limit altitude to 500" agl http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca....

Caller ID is on every cell phone I've owned, with no option to disable it. And automatic collision-avoidance systems that take control of your car will be mandated in the future

Nobody is forcing drone owners to download and install this update. And in case you weren't aware, the drone involved in this incident already has software to restrict access to no-fly zones. The only difference is now you can download an update that includes the White House no-fly zone.

The EFF is once again engaging in fear-mongering to try to get attention - and suckers are falling for it - again.

Please consider this - without manufacturing such "crisis", the EFF would not attract new members and funding to replace those leaving by various attrition methods. So, they are employing the same techniques as spammers and clickbait advertisers.

This no-fly zone feature has been around for quite a while on their high-end models, to prevent users flying over an airport - see http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca...

Also, last time I checked the firmware update process involved connecting the quadcopter to a PC via a USB cable, so it's not like new rules are being applied without the user knowing.

Im not sure if it is or not, but there is a height restriction that DJI publishes for the area due to a close by airport.