Rob W
Second Officer
Flight distance : 94390 ft
Sweden
Offline
|
I also see difficulties for DJI's solution in the EU. I think most of the people working with these questions are happy the industry takes action and shows solutions. But I also think that DJI will find it hard (if not impossible) to legally have their solution accepted in the EU in it's current form.
Why? Just a quick peek in the history. EU fought Microsoft about the forced implementation of Internet Explorer in their OS. EU thought the user should have a choice which browser should be installed. EU won and Microsoft had to release a version of their OS which let the user choose it they wanted IE installed. (Some years later thought, this changed again).
But what is interesting about this, is that EU fought so hard against a piece of software, that in itself is not critical and harmless. I mean, if you have IE installed but don't want to use it, fine, use another browser. If IE have crashed, install another browser. What sites you visit is up to you. With this solution we have no choice. We bought a product before restrictions forcefully was put in place.
In DJI's case very much is not told about the software that concern me. What user data is kept? Where is it saved? To what use? Who have access to this data? Why should a private company have this personal data? What happens if a server side failure happens which prevents me legally to fly? And many, many more questions. I can see EU put restrictions on DJI's solution.
Yes, restrictions (preferably automatic, like with software/hardware) should be used to hinder UAS to fly in restricted airspace. But it should be governed with the laws and restrictions that exist in each country, and controlled by the authorities in that country. Perhaps with the help from DJI in the long run, but not the other way around. |
|