You may already be aware of the ongoing attempts to restrict the use of DJI drones in the United States. Last year, we faced House Bill H6572, which has re-emerged this year as House Bill H2864. This legislation, proposed under the banner of the Countering CCP Drones Act by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI), seeks to revise the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019. Specifically, it targets certain equipment and services manufactured by DJI Technologies for inclusion in the list of scrutinized communication devices.

The possible ban of DJI drones sparked considerable concern among drone enthusiasts, leading to a number of articles and videos on the subject. The heightened interest has prompted some people to seek assistance in articulating their concerns to their elected officials. DroneXL has compiled the following text for anyone wishing to voice their opinion to their Congressional representatives, to ensure that this proposed legislation does not result in an outright ban of DJI drones in the United States.

However, it's important to clarify that the possibility of a DJI drone ban isn't as imminent as some might believe. This sentiment is echoed by Ryan Latourette, the Director of Regulatory Affairs at Great Lakes Drone Company LLC, who explains:

Take note that H.R. 6572, a bill introduced in February 2022, did not progress beyond committee consideration. The current version, H.R. 2864, followed the same trajectory when it was introduced in April, immediately dispatched to committee where it is likely to stagnate. The original H.R. 6572 was supported by three sponsors, all from the GOP's periphery. Interestingly, one of these sponsors opted not to endorse the new bill.

Hence, this proposal lacks bipartisan support, is promoted by a niche group, and faces a divided House and Senate. It's doubtful it will reach the House floor unless endorsed by McCarthy.

Even if it passed the House, Senate Majority Leader Schumer would likely ignore it due to the lack of enthusiasm for bolstering fringe GOP initiatives. Moreover, it would still face the hurdle of a Democratic president. This scenario underscores the partisanship pervading politics. The landscape would be drastically different with bipartisan sponsorship.

Should you prefer to err on the side of caution and wish to reach out to your representatives, you're welcome to use the following text as a basis for your message.

Thanks to both Vic Moss from the DSPA and Ryan Latourette for providing input for this article.

Response template to the DJI Ban

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Proposal to Amend the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019

Dear [Congressman/Congresswoman] [Last Name],

I hope this message finds you well. As a member of your district, I'm writing to express significant concerns about the proposed amendment to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019.

The amendment in question, presented under the Countering CCP Drones Act by Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI), aims to add certain equipment and services produced by DJI Technologies to the list of covered communications equipment.

While I understand the importance of safeguarding our communication networks, I believe the proposal has significant potential for unintended adverse impacts. I'd like to present the following critical arguments to underscore my concerns.

DJI drones benefit our society

DJI drones are renowned for their affordability, exceptional capabilities, wide availability, superior safety features, and user-friendly operation, making them a market leader in the industry and the obvious choice for many drone operators in various societal benefitting scenarios, including the following:

Safety and Emergency Response: DJI drones play a critical role in disaster management, such as fire outbreaks or floods, where they provide real-time data, aiding in quicker response times and preventing further harm. They're also used in Search and Rescue missions due to their ability to reach inaccessible areas.

Environmental Monitoring and Conservation: DJI drones are used in environmental monitoring, Wildlife conservation, and agricultural management. They can capture detailed images of a region's flora and fauna, monitor biodiversity, and even help detect illegal activities such as poaching.

Infrastructure Inspection and Maintenance: DJI drones make the inspection of critical infrastructure like bridges, power lines, and wind turbines safer and more efficient. They can access difficult areas, reducing the risk to human inspectors.

Delivery and Logistics: DJI drones can speed up deliveries and reduce traffic congestion and CO2 emissions. This can be particularly beneficial for delivering critical items, such as medicines in remote or difficult-to-reach locations.

Data Collection and Mapping: DJI drones provide accurate data for mapping and surveying purposes, benefiting sectors like construction, real estate, Archaeology, and forestry. They can create high-resolution 3D maps, track changes over time, and access remote locations.

Journalism and Filmmaking: DJI drones have revolutionized the media industry, offering new perspectives for News reporting, filmmaking, and sports broadcasting. They provide unique aerial views and can capture scenes that would be otherwise challenging or risky to film.

Jobs and Economy: The Drone Industry is predicted to create numerous jobs across various sectors, driving economic growth. According to the FAA, it could generate over $82 billion for the U.S. economy and create 100,000 new jobs by 2025.

Restricting DJI Technologies' contributions to our society could hinder technological progress and innovation, destabilize a vibrant economic sector, and cause severe disruptions to life-saving operations.

DJI drones pose no threat to national security

An extensive security audit, led by the acclaimed cybersecurity team at Booz Allen Hamilton, reaffirmed the absence of any data transmission from DJI drones to DJI, China, or any unexpected entities. Conducted under the auspices of PrecisionHawk's Unmanned Aerial Intelligence Technology Center of Excellence (UAS COE), the examination delved into three distinct DJI commercial drones. The conclusion of the audit, emphasizing the user's control over data collected via DJI drones, debunked claims of undisclosed data redirection from these devices. This audit stands as yet another independent confirmation of DJI products' security.

It's worth noting that DJI products have also undergone scrutiny by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. cybersecurity firm Kivu Consulting, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, among others, and emerged with their security intact. To date, no definitive evidence of a Data Security threat tied to DJI drones has surfaced, demonstrating their reliability in safeguarding user data.

Concluding

In light of these concerns and considerations, I urge you to reconsider the proposed amendment. It is essential that we strike a balanced approach to national security without inhibiting technological innovation or economic growth.

I request that you reflect on my concerns during your deliberations over this amendment. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue and observing your actions in upcoming discussions and votes.

Thank you for your dedication to serving our community and preserving our shared values.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]

Source: https://dronexl.co/2023/06/06/response-dji-ban-house-bill-2864/

DJI should pay you to defend them like this.

If this law is passed by your government, I think it will be a good thing. This will allow other brands to develop.

We are not married to DJI, but the enthusiasm for the brand is clearly hampering competition and that is a shame.

DroneXL is not a DJI fanboi at all but:

1. We are against the aggressive lobbying techniques used by companies such as Skydio to eliminate competition by creating legal barriers.

2. Although we wish other (US-based) competitors could manufacture drones at scale, that are easy-to-fly, capable, and affordable, there simply aren't any right now.

The benefits that (DJI) drones offer our society are too great to ignore or to allow companies like Skydio to deny us. So yeah, that's why we wrote the above article.

Thanks,Haye

Read this article if you want to hear the above confirmed by first responders in Florida: https://dronexl.co/2023/03/31/bl ... pimping-for-skydio/

DroneXL.co Posted at 6-8 09:08
DroneXL is not a DJI fanboi at all but:

1. We are against the aggressive lobbying techniques used by companies such as Skydio to eliminate competition by creating legal barriers.

The article is interesting, it is very caricatural of the image we have of the USA.

Politics that employ legal means to promote national businesses, isn't that what your government has always done? It doesn't shock me, I think it's a good thing. If this creates jobs and generates resources in your country, they would be wrong to bother.

DroneXL.co Posted at 6-8 09:08
DroneXL is not a DJI fanboi at all but:

1. We are against the aggressive lobbying techniques used by companies such as Skydio to eliminate competition by creating legal barriers.

Thank you for this. I’ve always believed traditional competition, is what’s advanced or made products more affordable here in the US, not having the govt pick winners and losers. Todays way of competing seems to be through lobbying and doing things similar to what DroneXL is describing.

Without bipartisan support this is dead in the water.

American drone manufacturers are way behind the power curve of developing drones equivalent to the flying capabilities and functions of the DJI drones.  I prefer to buy USA made products but they can't be inferior to what importers provide.

Lots of issues on a lot of different fronts, but here is something I am certain I do not need - the loving protection of government to tell me what I may and not buy.  

As far as I know, none of these "nefarious" actions/spying have been proven...Although I hate the fact that there is damn near a monopoly of the DJI drones, there is nothing stopping another competitor to produce their own products.
I, personally, feel that competition is good for the market and have bought competing products only to be disappointed by either the performance or service. so back to DJI.
To legislate products as this bill proposes is just political nonsense and is just the tip of the iceberg as far as how the US "lawmakers" are doing things. They should all be forced to wear a sign that reveals their "sponsors" ...along the lines of a race team... so we will at least know who BOUGHT them!

Is the idea to ban all DJI drones for everyone in the USA or just to prevent government etc. agencies form using them?

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 6-21 05:53
Is the idea to ban all DJI drones for everyone in the USA or just to prevent government etc. agencies form using them?

Both.  When I see legislation that would prevent drones from getting government approval, seems like they are trying to prevent them from being sold in the US which means ordinary consumer would not be able to purchase them.  Not sure how the government stops citizens from flying them or owning them.

The Saint Posted at 6-21 06:05
Both.  When I see legislation that would prevent drones from getting government approval, seems like they are trying to prevent them from being sold in the US which means ordinary consumer would not be able to purchase them.  Not sure how the government stops citizens from flying them or owning them.

By blocking access to communications infrastructure.

TonyPHX Posted at 6-21 08:44
By blocking access to communications infrastructure.

i guess im not sure what that means since im not familiar enough with the system to understand how effective this is.  certainly this cannot stop ownership so this means flying the drone, correct?  the government can block access to communications infrastructure and therefore prevent me from flying the dji drone that i already have?  does this mean for example, when florida has a new law that says government entities can longer use dji drone starting in january, does that mean those entities could face this same block starting in january to ensure their compliance?  i guess i never knew there was a required communications infrastructure under government control that could ground our drones....interesting.
eta:  i guess i am aware of localized blocking and jamming....

The Saint Posted at 6-21 09:56
i guess im not sure what that means since im not familiar enough with the system to understand how effective this is.  certainly this cannot stop ownership so this means flying the drone, correct?  the government can block access to communications infrastructure and therefore prevent me from flying the dji drone that i already have?  does this mean for example, when florida has a new law that says government entities can longer use dji drone starting in january, does that mean those entities could face this same block starting in january to ensure their compliance?  i guess i never knew there was a required communications infrastructure under government control that could ground our drones....interesting.
eta:  i guess i am aware of localized blocking and jamming....

If the government were to block access to DJI servers etc. then at some point it seems you will be logged out of the app and ........ 'screwed'.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 6-21 10:27
If the government were to block access to DJI servers etc. then at some point it seems you will be logged out of the app and ........ 'screwed'.

sure but couldn't dji simply deploy a sw update that would permit you to fly your drone without being logged in?

not sure how this "dji server" thing is done but i have to wonder why the us government believes dji is up to nefarious action when they can actually control access to dji servers.  maybe that's the reason why they know dji is up to no good?

I think this will be a very bad thing.  I use Tik Tok as an example.  The United States is banning Tik Tok for the same things they are accusing DJI of doing, but yet not showing ANY proof whatsoever except "Trust Us".  No hard evidence.  No evidence at all.  Our government is so unbelievable and so controlling now that it is hard to believe anything coming from them.
That's my 2 cents worth.  
And for the record, I do not use Tik Tok and am not a fan of Tik Tok.

The Saint Posted at 6-21 12:52
sure but couldn't dji simply deploy a sw update that would permit you to fly your drone without being logged in?

not sure how this "dji server" thing is done but i have to wonder why the us government believes dji is up to nefarious action when they can actually control access to dji servers.  maybe that's the reason why they know dji is up to no good?

I don't know how governments can block sites etc. way way beyond my inderstanding but as I recollect it has been done before ....... elsewhere ...... and possibly in the reverse sense.
That said if DJI do create the switch to allow flying without being logged in how, if DJI sites are blocked, are you going to get the switch etc. etc.?

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 6-21 13:56
I don't know how governments can block sites etc. way way beyond my inderstanding but as I recollect it has been done before ....... elsewhere ...... and possibly in the reverse sense.
That said if DJI do create the switch to allow flying without being logged in how, if DJI sites are blocked, are you going to get the switch etc. etc.?

Depends on the law that is passed and how it is interpreted by the government ie:  intent to impact everyone, etc.  Then there is the legal aspect such as court ruling like injunctions, etc.  Then I will look to my state government and see how likely they are to assist.  All in all, I would imagine if my DJI drones were grounded, I would try to wait it out see what happens and shift to flying my Autel and Skydio drones in the meantime until I determine if there is an endgame.  Ultimately I would like apply a patch if it were readily and easily available, YT tested, and undetectable and foolproof and/or cheap, etc after learning how RID would be deployed.  Short answer is Yes.

this is two end sharp knife , banning DJI in USA, could easily trigger banning of all the USA  drones in China market.
We also know very well, USA manufactures are well behind the technology and people choosing DJI because of the advance systems that can not be found in USA.

Stop reading articles about politicians jockeying for position to their voting base (either side). 99.99% are fruitless and recognized as ridiculous by any intelligent person.

akozc Posted at 6-21 19:48
this is two end sharp knife , banning DJI in USA, could easily trigger banning of all the USA  drones in China market.
We also know very well, USA manufactures are well behind the technology and people choosing DJI because of the advance systems that can not be found in USA.

You are correct for the consumer market. For the military market...another story. US is way ahead by decades. We spend absolutley all our money on an virtual enemy. Crazy.

The Saint Posted at 6-21 09:56
i guess im not sure what that means since im not familiar enough with the system to understand how effective this is.  certainly this cannot stop ownership so this means flying the drone, correct?  the government can block access to communications infrastructure and therefore prevent me from flying the dji drone that i already have?  does this mean for example, when florida has a new law that says government entities can longer use dji drone starting in january, does that mean those entities could face this same block starting in january to ensure their compliance?  i guess i never knew there was a required communications infrastructure under government control that could ground our drones....interesting.
eta:  i guess i am aware of localized blocking and jamming....

FCC approval for any devices using radios for example.  Never doubt government stupidity.

LV_Forestry Posted at 6-8 09:29
The article is interesting, it is very caricatural of the image we have of the USA.

Politics that employ legal means to promote national businesses, isn't that what your government has always done? It doesn't shock me, I think it's a good thing. If this creates jobs and generates resources in your country, they would be wrong to bother.

It doesn't shock me, I think it's a good thing. If this creates jobs and generates resources in your country, they would be wrong to bother.
You think it's a good thing for inefficient US companies to bribe politicians to penalise or ban competing manufacturers so that the US companies don't have to deal with proper competition?
That's just corrupt and doesn't promote competition or innovation and ends up with the users being ripped off to buy inferior products.

Labroides Posted at 6-22 03:56
It doesn't shock me, I think it's a good thing. If this creates jobs and generates resources in your country, they would be wrong to bother.
You think it's a good thing for inefficient US companies to bribe politicians to penalise or ban competing manufacturers so that the US companies don't have to deal with proper competition?
That's just corrupt and doesn't promote competition or innovation and ends up with the users being ripped off to buy inferior products.

Yes on the point of corruption you are not wrong, it is a point of view that can be defended.

About the "inefficient US company" I doubt that anyone in the USA is able to match DJI in terms of product quality. The problem to develop a product you need money and customers. DJI has captured a large share of the market.

The image I had of the Americans, ready to defend their industry by any means, is actually false. I have the feeling that there is a gap between politics and citizen' state of mind in the US. Is that the case ?

LV_Forestry Posted at 6-8 09:29
The article is interesting, it is very caricatural of the image we have of the USA.

Politics that employ legal means to promote national businesses, isn't that what your government has always done? It doesn't shock me, I think it's a good thing. If this creates jobs and generates resources in your country, they would be wrong to bother.

There is a better explanation, an I believe Russ has hit the nail on the head.

Then again, US companies would buy material and components from other countries to have the drones built off-shore, and then sell them under a US name.

Tom_765 Posted at 6-21 13:30
I think this will be a very bad thing.  I use Tik Tok as an example.  The United States is banning Tik Tok for the same things they are accusing DJI of doing, but yet not showing ANY proof whatsoever except "Trust Us".  No hard evidence.  No evidence at all.  Our government is so unbelievable and so controlling now that it is hard to believe anything coming from them.
That's my 2 cents worth.  
And for the record, I do not use Tik Tok and am not a fan of Tik Tok.

Very well said, and 100% truth.

I think there will be a LOT to keep the US government busy in the coming months.

Perhaps if DJI would stop forcing people to have to log in every time you fly, it could make it easier to make people relax a bit more on this matter... IMO

HD Pilot Posted at 6-22 16:04
There is a better explanation, an I believe Russ has hit the nail on the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZFtB9RwZY

Yep, I too think Russ nailed it. The "alliance" will be the ultimate decision maker, and that is scary.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2023-6-8 08:49
DJI should pay you to defend them like this.

If this law is passed by your government, I think it will be a good thing. This will allow other brands to develop.

It’s interesting that you should say that because banning DJI drones would do exactly the opposite, competition is the birthplace of innovation!

LV_Forestry Posted at 2023-6-8 08:49
DJI should pay you to defend them like this.

If this law is passed by your government, I think it will be a good thing. This will allow other brands to develop.

"If this law is passed by your government, I think it will be a good thing. This will allow other brands to develop."

Are you serious? That's the most moronic statement I've ever heard. That's like saying we should outlaw brunettes and give red heads a chance to flourish.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2023-6-8 08:49
DJI should pay you to defend them like this.

If this law is passed by your government, I think it will be a good thing. This will allow other brands to develop.

The bill does not only affect DJI. It involves millions of drone pilots and operators. It will force the closure of thousands of small businesses and privately owned LLCs.   It would force consumers and businesses to pay millions of dollars to purchase new drones and equipment. Has any factual data been published linking consumer drones with CCP spying?  

Share your concerns!  Contact every elected representative you know!  

eyeg4et1956 Posted at 3-19 02:58
The bill does not only affect DJI. It involves millions of drone pilots and operators. It will force the closure of thousands of small businesses and privately owned LLCs.   It would force consumers and businesses to pay millions of dollars to purchase new drones and equipment. Has any factual data been published linking consumer drones with CCP spying?  

Share your concerns!  Contact every elected representative you know!

Actually in Europe this situation is profitable for us.  This is an opportunity to see drone manufacturers other than DJI emerge.  

Here the leader is clearly DJI, during calls for tenders most of the responses concern DJI drones and payloads.

Personally, I understand that this resolution could be detrimental to you US company and citizen, but I am sure that you will survive it, and I do not mind letting you pay the bill.

This is just the first step in banning all consumer UAVs RC Drones planes helicopters. etc.

These corporations want the airspace we use. They want to destroy this hobby.