The Case for DJI's Drone Geoframe Regulation & Their DRM

After the Federal Aviation Administration's attempt at regulating the drone business was shot down by a federal appeals court this week, DJI, the largest hobby and professional drone manufacturer in the world, rolled out their own efforts to design a framework of self regulation, if not for the entire industry, then for at least their corner of it.

According to VOX.com:

Chinese company DJI made a pretty significant change to the process of buying and activating its drones over the weekend. Going forward, DJI drones will be severely limited in functionality until buyers register them with the company.

Failure to register with DJI means the drone will have a height limit of  98 feet (30 meters), a radius of 164 feet (50 meters), and the live  video feed will be disabled. “This new step, to take effect at the end  of next week, ensures you will use the correct set of geospatial  information and flight functions for your aircraft, as determined by  your geographical location and user profile,” the company writes. The  change applies internationally.

This represents a major step - some say intrusion - into how owners of their own equipment are able to use their own property for their own purposes.  As soon as I heard the news, I had a feeling that there would be a backlash against this kind of move.  Thankfully, Reddit did not let me down.

Here are some fun comments:

Seriously, fuck everything about DJI.  Assholes.  

Vote with your wallet. Don't buy this shit, The END.

Hmm, I wonder if it'll be two or three weeks before someone tampers with  the software and unblocks it without having to register it to some shit  company.

...this assault on the concept of ownership is a widespread trend. The  same thing is happening with products ranging from cars to coffeemakers  -- and now drones. It must be opposed not only by boycotting companies that infect their products with DRM, but also by proactive political activism.

On the other end of the comments were people who were genuinely pleased with the decision.  After all there have been a series of high profile incidents involving drones.

• Nearly 600 critical drone incidents in 2016
• Isis outfits DJI drones with bombs
• Drones interfere with firefighters
• Woman assaults kid flying drone on a beach
• Drones and national security
• Couple arrested for drone voyeurism

Now, in the USA, we live in a society that stresses individual freedom - though imperfectly - and the ability to conduct business as we see fit, and between the constant tension of freedom and responsibility lies regulation. Obviously, not all regulation is helpful - ahem... prohibition - but in order for individuals to interact with each other over space and time and avoid violence or harm, we have to know what the rules are.  Rules can either be informal, or formal, self imposed or imposed from above.  However these rules are levied, there must be rules so we can have an objective standard by which to operate.

The examples above demonstrate that although most people are able to muster their common sense in order to avoid harm, there appears to be enough of a problem - or fear of one - to necessitate some kind of rule formation so that across space and time, people know what the actual rules are.

I say space and time because if you're a drone operator - especially a commercial one - you are probably traveling quite often.  Different towns, cities and countries are going to come and go faster than you can predict, and it's hard to keep track of all the regulations one would have to deal with .  

Enter DJI's new registration regime GEO.  By registering your drone, the system knows your location and user profile and will automatically restrict your drone's operational limits based on local laws and safety practices.  The drone will automatically know where local airports are, other nearby hazards and local ordinances that restrict the flight paths of your aerial vehicle.

In my opinion, this isn't an attempt by DJI to control your property, but to help you keep your property, other people's property and lives free from harm.  This is a perfect example of an industry beginning to self regulate and it's something that happens all the time.  Nothing is perfect.  Self regulation can, and does, fail.  But when compared to the overbearing, heavy handed tools used by the state - violent enforcement of rules - self regulation can offer an excellent, voluntary and peaceful solution to problems within the industry, real or perceived. 

DRM (Digital Rights Management)

According to WikiPedia:

Digital rights management (DRM) schemes are various access control technologies that are used to restrict usage of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works.[1]  DRM technologies try to control the use, modification, and distribution  of copyrighted works (such as software and multimedia content), as well  as systems within devices that enforce these policies.[2]

Working in the field of media myself, I have my own conflicted feelings about DRM.  I don't like it on movies or music.  Part of me wants artists and companies to recoup their investments, the other part of me feels information should be free.  I hate renting something on iTunes for $3 only to have the file deleted in 24 hours!  I hate it!  Believe me, I'm torn.  

However, when it comes to DRM and the software on the DJI drones, DRM makes perfect sense.  What good would the self regulating program be if one could simply turn it off?  It would be completely worthless.  

People should give this program a chance.  If it's too heavy handed or destroys people and property more than it keeps them from harm, people should vote with their feet and choose a competitor to maximize their freedom.  Be careful for what you wish for though.  If operators are unable to avoid acting responsible - self regulate - and companies can't keep their products out of nefarious hands, Uncle Sam might have to step in, and you'll get the regulation that nobody likes. 

The kind you get good and hard.

Phil