Seeing how drone warfare has become the new hot front in 21st century conflicts like Ukraine, it's hard not to speculate on the implications of this as political unrest continues to rise in the U.S.
It's no secret that the current U.S. regime views a sizeable portion of its own civilian citizens as enemy combatants. They are already shooting people in the face and not even putting up a pretense of acting shocked at the act. Historically, it is easier to win elections than revolutions; limiting access to game-changing technology puts the power advantage even more firmly in the corner of the regime.
Merely the documentary function of small drones is a threat to the current US government - their game changing effect on the battlefield in Ukraine is (one hopes) less relevant here. Just the threat of people taking pictures of what's happening is enough for them to restrict flight over an entire large city when ICE moves in.
I feel like the normal reaction is to see it in both and maintain a distinction between these two entirely different contexts without ignoring the crimes of the lesser.
They did murder a woman, but I agree that one murder is far short of a civil war. Even understanding that a single murder can be the spark that starts a fire, I don't think we're even close to that kind of scenario (contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric which has become normalized from both sides over the past 10ish years.)
Protestors and cops having tussles in the streets falls short of my bar for "brutal violence"; shooting a woman in the face certainly qualifies, but I am not seeing anything like that so widespread that it could motivate a drone ban like some people in this discussion are asserting. The political violence in America right now doesn't even come close to what was normal in living memory in the 20th century. America today is very peaceful, not that you'd think it from following the media.
The DJI ban is about China, not domestic protests.
I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's and 60's it was the federal government stepping in if things got out of hand. With what is happening today, who will step in to cool things down?
What's lacking authenticity is your assertion a well informed political cult engaged in gaming the system for its own benefit is not working multiple narratives.
If it was just about China they would not be turning TikTok, CBS into right wing platforms. They would not be announcing intent to violate 4th Amendment and go door to door without warrants.
Trump doesn't actually care about China. He prays on idiots fears with xenophobia. Trump is Palpatine. He's afraid of losing power. See also Steve Bannon at CPAC going on about how, if Dems win midterms a lot of them are going to prison.
Occam's Razor suggests it's not 12D chess they're playing. Just boring biological self selection. Someone in meeting brought up risk to them from drones.
Was working in EE designing motherboards for telco when manufacturing was offshored. It was plainly described as protectionism. Fear Americans with such skills could threaten Intel or copyright cartels. Educated and capable Americans capable of being manifold people who do not kowtow readily to political memes are greatly feared by the generation in charge. They've been working for years to maintain the historical narrative that serves.
Control the imports of technology to control the economy.
I am sharing my genuine opinions and perspectives. I assume you are as well. Let's keep it civil.
As for tiktok/etc, I don't think that has much of anything to do with ICE and has a lot more to do with squelching legitimate anti-zionist speech. That said, it does plausibly have a lot more to do with domestic protests than a DJI drone ban, which is hardly a blanket ban on drones, and really will do next to nothing to stop people from using drones over/with/for protests. By the way, the DJI ban went through the House and Senate with bipartisan support, during Biden's presidency:
I don't agree, but I think there is some reasonable room for disagreement. I think she was merely being reckless, and the shooter didn't earnestly fear for his life but thought he'd be able to argue he was.
Are you enjoying the taste of the boot so much your eyes are closed in ecstasy? You think it is not brutal state violence to go door-to-door, kicking some in and extracting people who are, at worst, suspected of misdemeanor? Have you ever been the victim of a Kavanaugh stop? I have, and I live in Minneapolis and have personally witnessed ICE jumping out of SUVs, chasing someone who simply pointed at them, knock them down and get back into their SUV to go on terrorizing people.
I wouldn't want illegal aliens in my country. They're criminals. Norway doesn't allow it, we control our borders. We could do a better job, but at least we don't have a backlog the size of the US'
Glad that Norway has the immigration problem solved *eye roll*
Tell me more about how humans are criminals for existing? You hate the idea of someone standing on your piece of dirt without your express say-so that your preference is to live under an umbrella of fear and suspicion of your neighbors?
Forgive me, this is not how I want to live. I wonder how many Norwegians who settled in Minnesota were illegal immigrants?
It's mostly in Minnesota at the moment, but has been present in many other states that didn't vote for President Trump. You can see it in news coverage, or if you're near Minneapolis you can go see it in person.
Probably so. Having the software and hardware built in the US facilitate installation of backdoors. This comes handy to control the population just at the moment when the population feels they had an hedge over ICE, the regime, etc.
You don't need a revolution narrative to criticize this ban. It's already bad policy on its own merits: it freezes innovation, hurts hobbyists and small businesses etc
These things are true, but they don't explain why the u.s. government would make it a priority to ban such technologies. saying "well, republicans are bad so they do bad things" robs us the ability to understand the world.
My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil.
Overall it is probably better for the world society in general that pretense is gone and the realpolitics is laid bare. The risks are no longer ambiguous but real and clearly stated and the world can plan mitigation accordingly.
No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy at gunpoint.
America has always been at its best when it lives up to its ideals, and at its worst when it discards those ideals. America has often been in the wrong, but on balance, the world has been better off for having a great champion of liberal democracy.
With Trump, it's not a question of believing things that are right or wrong. For the post-truth mindset, right and wrong don't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. There is only power. The second Trump presidency is the first time in modern history that America is no longer a great nation.
>No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans.
The push into Iraq to remove Hussein was an effort to gain control over the oil and gas production in Iraq. It was favored by the domestic oil and gas industry here in the US and once we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan after Sept 11 and Bush&Co began making noise about Iraq and WoMD, the industry began digging up old geological and geophysical studies of the region to build interest and knowledge base domestically so that once our troops had control of the production areas domestic operators could move in to handle production. Industry publications had adverts for old Iraq datasets and services related to it before any invasion happened. Maybe they were just hedging their bets you say. Yeah, right. It was always about oil and gas in Iraq. They just needed to remove the thorn in their side and install a compliant government.
I can understand that point of view from a U.S. citizen's (and allied West) point of view that you think US is really ideological. But as a non-US person, even when US pretended to be ideological, there is an underlying reality of maintaining hegemony, access to resources, etc.
When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attack India (not clear the intentions, but Soviets got involved). There are many such cases.
For rest of the world to believe that US has only best intentions, they have to be really naive. In case Saddam, would US have the same enthusiasm for democracy if it was not for oil? US has toppled democratic governments when they were not aligned to its interest.
To put it in personal terms, would anyone trust someone with their money to person who only cheats 70% of times, while is honest 30% of times? The conclusion to be had is that those in incidents of honesty aligned with the interests of the person. Not because he or she was actually a good person.
No the irony is that Trump lied
about the oil - heavy sour Venezuelan oil is mostly useless to the US because we are awash in our own. He did it to experiment with “regime change light”
> My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics
This is a perspective that continues to boggle my mind.
Every record of the United States acting internationally has been either:
Explicitly horrific (Invasion of Grenada, Vietnam, Firebombing then nuking Tokyo, Iraq etc…)
Attempts to Subvert or ignore international law (IPCC, ICC, UN…)
Or benefits some major industrial corporation (NAFTA, WTO etc…)
Please point to any type of transcendent “morality or rules” that isn’t just straight up large scale international realpolitik and propaganda around maintaining global capitalism on behalf of American based owners.
The word pretense to me means “we’re gonna actually try this and let’s see how it goes”
The United States has literally never done that and we know that because internal documentations for pretty much anything always have some kind of American benefit Nexus it is not based on any type of foundational belief that transcends the concept of “we’re gonna do whatever the people who are the loudest owners of the political system of the United States want to do”
Everything else including: Powell going to the UN with a vile full of rice is just straight up unabashed unequivocal propaganda
Like all large organizations and projects they are not absolutely perfect or ethical, as you can see in the Concerns and criticism section towards the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Still, I think they made some contribution to humanity. I have seen articles saying the withdrawal of funding has definitely hurt communities USAID had been helping.
I know the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) do (or did) disease prevention work outside the US. There are other examples like these. I don’t know if the government did more good than bad, but they certainly have done some good that is not just designed to benefit American big capitalists.
Ah yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the drones running closed proprietary software via OTA updates, with encrypted data connections back to China, while being outfitted with 8k cameras, gps, lidar, etc.
Much like the TikTok ban this seems like something that could be handled through actually regulating what tech companies are allowed to do, rather than just picking on specific products and saying ‘stop that, it’s making us nervous’.
Federal laws about data collection and retention, export, and algorithmic usage… as well as laws about software update channels for hardware devices, eg requiring that it be possible to replace firmware yourself… all sorts of regulations could be put in place that leave the software and hardware markets open, by making it clear where the boundaries are. If DJI or TikTok are doing something bad, prosecute and fine them and enjoin them from doing it again… but make it clear what specific behavior you have a problem with.
We're too busy taking car companies' lines that it's reasonable they don't want people going to a local mechanic because "The data your car collected on you might get hacked and sent to China!" rather than asking "What are cars doing collecting this data, if it's such a risk?"
Your tinfoil hat narrative doesn't really jive with DJI asking for audit and review more than a year ago, with no one in the federal government actually stepping up before just outright banning things they either don't want or don't understand.
What do you present it as? He’s in front of her vehicle, in uniform. She sees he is there, puts it in drive, and pulls forward. The legal standard for him to use force doesn’t require that he ends up under the wheel before he can shoot.
“The officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person”, and someone gunning an SUV at you is imminent danger.
It’s reassuring to know the courts don’t apply your perfect hindsight standard.
Graham V Connor:
“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
It’s wild to think you can drive towards a Fed, inches from your bumper, and not get shot because “you weren’t intending to hit him”.
Law enforcement is trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle because you risk public safety if the driver is incapacitated. Also LE is trained not to put themselves in front or back of the vehicle, since you can get run over that way. Agent Jonathan Ross did not follow his training, despite being dragged by a vehicle months earlier.
You also have to ask why Renee Good decided to leave her wife behind who tried to get in the locked passenger door. Another agent was grabbing the driver door and reaching his hand inside. What was Mr. Ross doing with his free hand? He was holding his phone in the other hand to video the encounter for some reason, even though they're supposed to have body cams.
There's no way a judge or jury looks at this and thinks the agents involved followed proper training.
>Law enforcement is trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle
Unless that vehicle is an imminent deadly threat to the officer or others, which this officer reasonably believed.
>LE is trained not to put themselves in front or back of the vehicle, since you can get run over that way.
That’s a tactic, not policy - and again, which is it: Renee isn’t going to run someone over, so he can stand there, or she is going to run someone over, so he shouldn’t stand there?
>Agent Jonathan Ross did not follow his training, despite being dragged by a vehicle months earlier.
Past incidents do not legally compel an officer to act differently in the moment. Just as how getting dragged in the past doesn’t further justify his shooting, it also doesn’t mean he should’ve done anything differently.
>You also have to ask why Renee Good decided to leave her wife behind who tried to get in the locked passenger door. Another agent was grabbing the driver door and reaching his hand inside.
Yes, that further depicts her actions as reckless, chaotic, and contributes to the perception of her driving being dangerous flight, rather than casually driving away.
>There's no way a judge or jury looks at this and thinks the agents involved followed proper training.
Training is not the legal standard, “objective reasonableness” is. An officer could (and did) reasonably believe that a woman obstructing ICE, fleeing an interaction with such haste that she left her passenger, and driving forward with him at the front bumper is in imminent danger of being struck by the SUV.
There are numerous OIS involving people in vehicles and cops on foot, and they consistently are cleared, even when the officer is in a less dangerous position than the Minnesota scenario.
Its obvious that she was resisting arrest and trying to flee. But as for the ICE agent being in front of the car... barely. I don't believe he genuinely feared for his life, he could have simply stepped out of the way. I think he saw the woman fleeing, figured he was close enough to being in harms way to justify himself, and shot the woman because he was mad at her.
I've been in situations like that in Walmart parking lots, where a car jolts forward and I have to jump out of the way, and maybe I say "That crazy bitch just tried to kill me" but while saying that I understand it to be a hyperbolic albeit justified anger at reckless driving, and that nobody was actually trying to kill me, and shooting the driver in the face instead of diving out of the way would be a suboptimal survival strategy even if homicidal intent was there.
I don't understand what jurisdiction ICE has to enforce traffic laws. We see other vehicles drive around her vehicle, so at most it was a minor inconvenience for ICE. Call the local LE on her if you don't like how she's parked in the road and they can issue a ticket.
Federal agents can arrest people for obstructing them, if you block the road they aren't obliged to defer to local cops and laws, because fucking with federal agents like that violates federal laws. Regardless, none of it justifies a murder.
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
As per a sibling comment:
> The bad apples metaphor originated as a warning of the corrupting influence of one corrupt or sinful person on a group: that "one bad apple can spoil the barrel". Over time the concept has been used to describe the opposite situation, where "a few bad apples" should not be seen as representative of the rest of their group. This latter version is often used in the context of police misconduct.
> The bad apples metaphor originates from the proverb "A rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor", first recorded as used in English in 1340.[1]
And the real problem is that the highest levels of government is defending the actions of the bad-apple cop.
It is the fact that these crazy high quotas that ICE agents must meet are a high-level government policy that are 'forcing' the agents to do these crazy things (if they want to keep their jobs); of course some ICE thugs enjoy doing this and like the power trip(s).
Regardless of all the rest, what a saying meant 1000 years ago is irrelevant. I find it bizarre anyone is providing historical usage as if proves something.
You could pick endless words and sayings in English from 1000 years ago, which are entirely different now.
idk if you know about bad apples, but the idiom isn't "one bad apple is fine and can be successfully isolated and removed."
If we're speaking about the same incident, there was no mistake. it was intentional. there has been no apology from any official source, as one would expect in the case of a tragic mistake.
We don't even have to go that far to realize how quickly the democratic establishment would roll over in the face of a civil war. I don't think Chuck Schumer is going to be leading an armed resistance movement anytime soon.
Change my mind, but everyone's assumption that the Senate Minority Leader, of all people, is the de facto head of the democrats and would "lead" the opposition in a civil war is asinine – whether it's Chuck Schumer or whoever replaces him.
I guess you haven't read how the government reacted to the incident. Let's put it mildly and say: is wasn't treated as a mistake or bad-apple cop.
Just an example: "Vance said the ICE officer was clearly justified in shooting Good. The officer was clearly acting in self-defense, Vance said. He framed Good as "a victim of left-wing ideology" who was spurred by an alleged network of politically motivated groups to interfere with law enforcement."
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
Do you have any citations for that? Jonathon Ross's entire chain of command including Sec of DHS and the President has justified the killing in multiple public statements. There has not been any official admission that it was a mistake, tragic nor description of Jonathan Ross as a "bad" apple or anything.
And anyone who has seen more than just the one the video the Trump administration wanted everyone to see knows the Trump admin is lying though their teeth.
I have seen multiple high level leader say that the shooting was warranted and ok. They expressed happiness over the killing. That includes Trump, Vance and Kristi Noem. They praised the shooter and threatened others.
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
It was not bad apple. It was logical conclusion of ICE tactic and strategy. They also kidnap people, beat them up, throw them out somewhere else on the street. They throw tear gas into insides of cars or just randomly as bye package to citizens. They intentionally ram cars and cause traffic accidents.
Also, concretely, the lower level ICE members have seen to:
1.) do stuff like pointing a gun at a woman and saying "you did not learned from it".
2.) Destroyed memorial of the killed woman.
3.) Been heard to say she was "fucking bitch".
It was not bad apple. He is their hero and exactly where their tactic will go.
It's not just one bad apple. There have been 16 ICE shootings resulting in four deaths during Trump's 2nd term and 32 people died in ICE detention during 2025. There are multiple videos out of Minneapolis & St. Paul since Renee Good's shooting where ICE have broken down the door of someone's home, beat a man and left him bleeding in another part of town, accosted someone at a gas station, tried to enter the home of a family where the DoorDash lady had fled for safety, threatened the death to drivers whom they accused of following them, posed for a picture with an influencer yelling about how they executed one of the protestors, and caused chaos at a high school leading to public schools temporarily shutting down.
This is officially sanctioned domestic terrorism against the citizens of Minnesota and no American should stand for it.
It's no secret that VC's are profiting massively from this administration. And all comments critical of the current regime are getting downvoted on HN. Something adds up.
this is not really about VCs as much as wealthy tech billionaires who have learned that no one listened to their political thoughts & beliefs, but they can now use their technology & money to circumvent the need to gain a democratic mandate. Peter Thiel has literally stated this strategy, and you've recently watched them all fall in line, even if it meant massive whiplash from their previously stated positions.
Reminder: when you are logged out, HN will show static cached content. Since there's no login session it doesn't have to compute parts of the page unique to the user.
When huge stories hit, and HN is overloaded, browing while logged out is the way to get through.
Trump will be gone in 3 years. Maybe fewer depending on his health. It's unlikely that this change will have any meaningful effect on US democracy.
On the other hand, little drones are effectively munitions now. That means drone manufacturing capacity is effectively munitions manufacturing capacity. We're giving potential adversaries economies of scale building things that may be used to kill us.
I'm generally a pretty free market guy but the war in Ukraine has changed some things. My main complaint with this law is that it is so US focused; I'd be fine with drones built in Europe or Japan or other allied nations.
I don’t know if we should be so sure that he will be gone in three years. There is no incentive for him to relinquish control peacefully. We’ll have to give him a plea bargain, or a pardon of sorts, to incentivise him stepping down. Without one his back will be against a wall (or iron bars in this case), and he will gladly escalate to stay in power to avoid incarceration.
I'm far more concerned with the younger, smarter and just as evil minnions who are currently learning from the master how naked & deep the corruption can go without consequence. President Vance and VP Rubio may be less shocking but could be even worse for everyone.
No, you can think of them more like unarmed artillery shells. Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
Even if they were considered arms for the purpose of 2a this isn’t a ban on drones but a specific manufacturer. They government can definitely refuse to grant a manufacturer license to sell on this country.
>> Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
No I need to go to a flea market for that.
It's not a specific manufacturer; it will impact US-made drones too, and based on how it's being rolled out is intended to shut down decent quality, inexpensive and easily-acquired drown sales - exactly what say, a journalist might want.
After Mcviegh, shouldn’t all U-Haul’s be seen as unarmed vehicular large IEDs? A drone isn’t like an artillery shell because an artillery shell is for putting in an artillery gun. A drone is for flying. Just because something can be modified to serve as some sort of weapon, does make it basically a weapon.
It was quite common in the wake of McVeigh and other large vehicle attacks that they should be seen as weapons and licensing strengthened.
The fact you can drive a 26,000 lb GVWR truck without any special license is something special we have in America compared to most of say, Europe. It's actually pretty mind blowing anyone can just rent 26 ft diesel 26,000 lb truck and get in and drive it on the highway.
It is testament to the fact there are a few vestiges of freedom left in America. Not much, but a few vestiges, since such trucks were around before the regulation hysteria of the late 20th century and 21st century.
>Trump will be gone in 3 years. Maybe fewer depending on his health.
He incited an insurrection last time he had power, in a desperate attempt to stay in power. Congress impeached him for it, but spineless Republicans refused to convict him for it. Then when he got power again, he pardoned everyone who took part in the insurrection. He's talked about having a 3rd term, so if you think he's just going to go away at the end of this term, you are mistaken.
that's not really comparable with the commercial/hobbyist market that DJI serves. These are not people who are going to research & build their own drones, or seek out small manufacturers; they're the ones who buy of Amazon and want the use of a drone, not drones as a lifestyle.
Maybe, or maybe it’s just good policy to not import a network of drones from an adversary to democracies across the world, which includes the EU most importantly as China helps Russia with its invasion of Ukraine and is gearing up for some activity in Taiwan.
People can just record all this stuff on their iPhones that they already have. You don’t need a DJI drone to record police malfeasance. Maybe you do in China or Iran though. In Iran they are just mowing people down. In China you get disappeared. Interesting that there are no protests about those things though. I guess they just have better social media marketing.
I think propping up the domestic small drone industry is clearly in America's national strategic interest. Hobbyists may not like it, but their toys have become potent weapons of war, so it's important for America that we don't count on importing all of them from China.
I'm in Calgary too (I assume this is what you're referencing). In the wake of this crisis (again!) and the more general decline in trust - both in politicians and your neighbors - a sociologist on the radio was talking about how communication, and specifically drone footage, helps build trust and connect emotionally with the public. We're trying to get people to use less water, and you can scold them (to no effect) or show them actual overhead pictures of the damage and impact.
Even as recently as this past week the United States Navy has tracked down and seized Russian "shadow fleet" tankers which are operating despite American and European sanctions, and did so with Russian naval vessels nearby and despite strong protests and anger from Moscow. Hopefully Europe can step up its game and do so too.
But do you know who is helping Russia besides China? India. Iran, South America (Brazil, &c.), plenty of other countries. They've given no money, no aid, and are all too happy to buy illicit Russian oil.
By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies.
The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war.
Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost.
Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger.
> The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us.
Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter?
Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.
> America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties
Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
Interesting that so many here are speculating that this ban is to stop "freedom fighters" in the US and not the obvious case that the US has wanted to reduce dependence on China in areas of critical technology.
Drones are not going away in the US, they will just not be made by their primary political adversary. Let's not be hyperbolic, the US is nowhere close to having a revolution or civil War. People need to stop getting their primary world view from doom scrolling instagram or reddit.
It's this now, but 3D printers, Meshtastic, and the ESP32 all seem likely to catch the ire of the administration if some deal is not done in the coming years.
I've been saying it for ages, but a decent easily available western equivalent to the ESP32 (meaning easy WiFi) needs to happen, and until it does there will be a giant hole in the middle of the entire maker universe, which increasingly acts as the prototyping stage for commercialized gadgetry.
I agree on the need to create an ESP32 equivalent. But the ESP32 doesn't really correlate to DJI here. DJI collects a massive amount of telemetry data and terrain data, forces the average user to upload this data, and isn't exactly forthcoming about what is collected or how it is used.
An ESP32 can, for the most part, be fully audited in what it is sending. Yes, the wireless drivers are binary blobs, but the developer has extensive control over the device, and it is easy to monitor/filter/firewall the data sent.
3D printers, as a general category, are also more similar to the ESP32 than to DJI.
> DJI collects a massive amount of telemetry data and terrain data
At first I found it hard to believe that this is data they wouldn't get more reliably, more extensively from a satellite. But then I imagine, if you were a bad actor, you wouldn't want all the video, all the exact terrain data, etc, but maybe only that near certain points of interest like energy infrastructure, transportation, etc. So this, paired with satellite data is super powerful.
Then again, for most of the US, Google street view exists so there's that, a lot of the data is already out there.
You are right. Also, it's not just data from the US, it's data from around the world. It also comes in real-time or near real-time, so you gain insight into where drones are actively flying. If you've managed to fingerprint interesting users in some way, you now have stats on where they are, what they are deeming interesting to look at, and so on. You're also getting much better imagery and views of things you are not going to get from a satellite.
This is not about recreating google maps data. The US banning DJI drones is really a necessity at this point. It's not a complete solution to the problems at hand, but there is no point in supporting China in this way.
I feel like blocking DJI is just politics of “we have have to do something, anything” and “hey look, we did things” even though those things are irrelevant.
Indeed, but they also took the magic part of their product development philosophy of focusing on making the whole end-to-end process for users absolutely solid, which both companies do better than anyone else in those segments.
> I've been saying it for ages, but a decent easily available western equivalent to the ESP32 (meaning easy WiFi) needs to happen
- Texas Instruments SimpleLink CC32xx (CC3220 / CC3235)
- TI CC3235MODA module
- Renesas DA16200
- Microchip PIC32MZ-W1
- Microchip WFI32 module family
- Silicon Labs SiWx917 / SiWG917
- Silicon Labs SiWx917Y module
- Nordic Semiconductor nRF7001/7002 WiFi 6 IC
- Use with nRF52, nRF53 or nRF91 series SoCs
- STMicroelectronics STM32 with ST67W series pre-certified WiFi modules
These solutions are priced well for commercial and industrial solutions at scale.
If necessary one can use any cheap hobby solution for initial development and then port to an industrial-class SoC solution. We've done this a few times during pandemic era shortages; using the RP2040 to get through prototyping and development and then switching the design to an industrial-grade chip.
What's missing from these parts which makes people reach for ESP32 by default instead? (I don't have any experience with ESP32.)
The TI parts seem a bit expensive in small quantities, but the Microchip and SiliLabs parts are like $6-7 in single units from Digi-Key. Is it just that the dev kits are in the >$50 price range which puts people off compared to ESP32?
> These solutions are priced well for commercial and industrial solutions at scale.
Translation: they're expensive, and getting them working involves jumping through hoops more complex than simply getting boards off Amazon and launching VS Code. They aren't equivalent, and the sneering isn't helping.
It is failing to understand this that opens the door to DJI and Bambu, who unsurprisingly prioritize user experience and predictability, which is a major factor in why in open competition they keep wiping the floor with everyone.
I'm in favor of tighter regulation on drone imports, both for national security reasons and to try to jumpstart a US drone industry.
Not allowing _any_ foreign made components, however, is insane, as is not even auditing DJI when they didn't put up a fight. They have to know they're just killing the small drone industry completely.
There’s currently nobody in the us small drone market to get complacent. Is there a single company that designs and builds sub $10,000 drones in the US?
Both making and removing regulation boosts my business, as my clients care about changes. That said, I assure you that one regulation getting made out of millions has no effect on my bottom line.
The drone thing is a personal opinion. If the US ends up in a war (whether it’s one I agree with or not, likely not), I don’t want millions of drones to be remote controllable by the folks we’re fighting.
I build hobby scale drones for fun, mostly sub250g micros with no military value.
I’d pay more for domestic parts, because I think the capability is strategically valuable, and the quality of Chinese stuff is super variable.
There’s basically no industry here because the aliexpress parts are so cheap, so I support some protectionism, understanding that it will make the hobby more expensive.
I think you’re probably right, but I think going for million dollar drones from anduril while wiping the rest of the market is a miscalculation.
What makes you think U.S.-manufactured parts would be less "variable" than Chinese stuff? I would guess the opposite to be the case: reliability comes from scale, and there's very little scale in U.S. electronics manufacturing in the first place.
Chinese stuff ranges from cheap to expensive, super reliable and super unreliable, too.
Wow, the title of the article really buries the lead as this is a much bigger deal than banning new versions of fully assembled drones made by a Chinese company.
I can’t even think of another country that makes 4S Lipo batteries or the motors or the ESC’s or the VTX or the GPS module..
Not surprising. Asymmetrically-powerful personal technology is a threat to the State's monopoly of force and power. Same reason for US juristictions banning hardware "hacking" devices, firearms manufacturing, 3D printing - hell, even building and maintaining a PC is becoming untenable. The writing is on the wall for what is next.
The impact is more for bind and fly drones that are FCC approved so you don’t need a HAM license to operate them.
To me it also looks like there are also loopholes you could drive a truck through in terms of importing partially assembled drones that can be assembled by the end user as well as approving components by making their use not exclusive to UAS.
What actually happens remains to be seen because it really depends on what the enforcement actually looks like and how well work arounds work.
I think the real goal of the regulators is to ensure an onshore supply chain for government use and there won’t be a focus on civilian usage.
Yeah, with parts from China...but that's banned too.
Homegrown factories and supply chains don't just pop up overnight though. So in the near term this just means zero drones and a disorderly transition.
Intentionally triggering that only really makes sense if you think a major confrontation is imminent and chaos is an acceptable price to pay to force speed.
They don't need to be that hard to develop. It's not like you need a return to base feature. Sort of like wanting to learn how to fly a plane, but not take off and land the plane. You don't need to have the full feature set of a DJI drone to make it a weapon. You also don't need to worry about the battery life of coming back, so you've essentially doubled your distance capabilities, so maybe a stronger radio. Do you need the video return signal too? I guess that would be some decent PR footage on the nightly news propaganda stations though, so might be worth the expense??? You also don't need to be burdened with the GeoFencing features of a DJI, but would be funny to see a bunch of attack drones all hover just outside a map boundary because the target has their base listed in the GeoFence library!
So while not duct-taping a GoPro (we'd use Gaff tape anyways), they could use bailing wire with a grenade or c4 bundle to attach it.
I think you're pretty confused about what most of these drones are doing.
DJI drones aren't being used as weapons platforms in the US...
They're being used for industry (agriculture, real estate, land surveillance, fire monitoring)
No one gives a shit that it's not difficult to make a flying grenade. They care that all the features you're in here mouthing off about as "not important" are actually important.
Just looking at the injection molded shell of my Mavic Mini makes me cringe when thinking about the startup cost. It's the plastic shell; not the motors, nor the circuitry, nor the optical parts...and to think you could build that in the USA is laughable. DJI releases 2-3 models every 2-3 years... if you could even find a company in the USA machining the steel molds at that frequency (i don't think it exists) how are you going to afford the bill?
We'll just let Boeing build them. They have the know-how.
Plus, if we're talking military drones vs civilian drones, they wouldn't need plastic shells. That'd just be more weight reducing distance. Then again, military industrial complex would probably try to make them stealth capable, be designed by committee from 22 nation states, be micro-USB mandated to comply with EU standards, blah blah. Yeah, you're right, we'd never be able to build them here.
It's been on the table since before 2024, the hobbyist community has been bracing for it for a while. Huawei devices were made illegal to sell in the US fairly suddenly as well.
I think the US military itself relies on big, sophisticated and expensive UAVs. Is there any US-only supply-chain to build millions of cheap drones for military applications? I don't agree with the ban, but if it forces a domestic supply chain, even for civilian use, that might be more tenable. But last I looked, I couldn't find any US vendor that makes similar quality drones, even if they manufacture overseas.
That these are banned but Chinese made robot vacuums and other appliances are not points to this not being about protecting individual Americans and more about protecting national interests (drones can map out terrain in a lot more detail and are mobile outside of your bedroom, and can be trivially weaponized)
My Chinese made robot vaccuum can't get from one end of a room to the other without bouncing off the walls multiple times. Makes it kind of hard to deliver ordinance like that. I really don't think these Chinese made robot vacuums you're afraid of are much of a threat.
This ban has more to do with how much geodetic data is being transmitted to China and less to do with the actual drone technology. People flying DJI drones are mapping the US on China's behalf, and that too with great fidelity.
Satellite synthetic aperture radar can have a resolution of like 6 inches. I can't imagine consumer grade drones are significantly improving on this, and even if they could do better I would question the utility of higher resolution data for anything military related.
I always thought the risk was more that such a drone fleet could be remotely commandeered for real-time updates on target locations. It's something that could only be done once, but wow, it would be a real advantage to the attacker.
Do we think anything secret is being conveyed when it comes to US terrain? It's not like there are too many secrets of that kind remaining. The Chinese can probably just buy any maps they need in any case. (perhaps a drone's potential to map or even affect the wifi landscape is more interesting as a security threat)
The potential for industrial espionage is perhaps more interesting, as drones are used for security, agriculture, and pretty much everything else you can shake a stick at.
Google and others have already mapped practically everything. I don't buy that China is using access to DJI drones to map anything. Seriously, what data set can they provide that isn't already public domain?
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that importation of drones is a terrific asset, rather than a liability. Maybe you think that lesson would not apply to the USA, but that wouldn't be a lesson learned from Ukraine, rather the lesson learned would be the opposite.
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that a robust drone supply chain is very important. For some countries it doesn't matter if this supply chain is rooted in China, for others it matters a lot.
The lesson from Ukraine is the importance of having access to drones. It doesn't take any remarkable mental feats to realize that if your primary source of drones is China, then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
> then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
Some might call that poor pre-planning. If you're about to go to war with your biggest supplier, you'd be well advised to stock up on supplies before firing the first shot.
Reducing the diversity of your supply chain and instead making your self so incredibly vulnerable that all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain (because imports have long been banned) is way less robust than maintaining imports. If you actually wanted what you claim, you'd allow imports while taxing or subsidizing until they look roughly break even with domestic offerings.
Your position is completely untenable here and relies on it being easier to destroy multiple 'industrial bases' plus the US drone industry rather than your straw man of just the "entire" US industrial base.
Even going off your theory that the US drone industry is not easily sabotaged, it can't possibly be easier to sabotage the US drone industry plus all the import pathways (which you would otherwise have to re-establish). That is why you chose this dismissive fake-quote rather than address what I've said.
I am not arguing it is easier to destroy the world's industrial capacity than just the US industrial capacity. I am saying that in the situation where you have so utterly devastated the US mainland that it is incapable of producing drones, the war is over. If you defeat the US then you defeat the US.
Of course I am rather dismissive of the claim that this is a small feat. I accuse you of not fully thinking through what exactly it would take to fubar domestic drone production.
"And with no American-made drones comparable to the category leaders, it’ll be a while before any company steps up to offer one."
The problem is that it would be extremely risky for a US company to spin up a comparable US built drone. Even if they can match the price/quality point, at any given time the government could remove the ban, killing the entire business model.
How does this interact with this[1] recent decision? Maybe I'm stupid but I don't think the article really explains the US Commerce Dept. decision outcome when the FCC ban is still in effect.
Reading through the notice from the FCC, it sure feels like they've also banned a lot of the critical components that go into line of sight RC airplanes. It really sucks, I kind of wonder if this won't crush the hobby and cause a lot vendors like Horizon or Hobby King to go under if they can't bring in planes or parts. Maybe they think someone is going to do a terrorism with their foamie Crack Yak or Turbo Timber..
News next week : "Donald Trump Jr opens US Drone company with exclusive import license from China."
> DJI responded publicly that month that they had nothing to hide, and subsequently spent a year trying to convince the U.S. government to begin the audit. But no federal agency even began
There's your answer. There was never any concern over Americans data being sent to China.
Also they didn't "Follow through", they simply let the clock run out without even evaluating DJI's reponse to the claims.
It’s hard to say on this one. There is a pretty extensive history of Chinese govt spying via consumer products [0]. Having worked formerly with the intelligence community, they tend not to tip their hand when they are aware of asymmetrical information.
It’s plausible that the determination was made that there were backdoors/spy equipment/whatever in the products, so no audit or smooth talking from corp representatives would make a difference in this case, given the supply chain remains controlled by an adversary. If you don’t trust that an audit can be executed with integrity then there’s not much point in conducting one at all.
The fact that this has been extended to all foreign drones does make that feel like more of a political statement though, or at the very least the original intent is being hijacked for political theater.
Intent is of course tricky to prove, but there is overwhelming evidence that’s Chinese government views the role of Chinese companies in the consumer electronics supply chain as a strategic, exploitable asset.
> Huawei has a history of IP theft and security incidents related to backdoors and malware going back nearly 20 years.
> ZTE has been accused of including unusual backdoors in some products and was caught selling equipment containing U.S. technology
to Iran and North Korea, in violation of trade agreements. … Security researchers, however, noted that the backdoors were “highly unusual” and appeared intentional because they were supporting software updates.
It's doubtful that there is currently a backdoor or anything that would fail an audit.
The problem is the software updates. Whoever controls those keys has an entire domestic fleet a single firmware update away. Probably won't even be DJI, but some either state or non-state hacker that happens to acquire the update keys.
Hard to ignore the parallel with other tech bans: vague data-risk claims, no public evidence, no transparent threat model, and zero nuance between consumer toys and critical infrastructure. If this logic were applied consistently, half of consumer electronics would be in trouble
Until the FCC wakes up and decides to change any detail of how they certify (which can happen easily), and then everything becomes no longer certified, and you'd basically have a full blanket ban of any transmitter, receiver, esc, motor, completed drone (or anything else that even incidentally emits EMI) that wasn't built in the US. The cards are set up there that it's extremely easy for them to just "incidentally" change a few things and hey no more drones of almost any sort, or RC planes, or hell parts for a whole lot of things.
I haven't kept up to date but does the US have that much more leverage over Canada anymore? Last I checked we have tariffs on most exports, including crude, wood, steel and aluminium (probably missing a bunch). General goods are tariff'ed at 35% while China is tariff'ed at 47.5%.
They could get us to ban DJI for sure but I'd assume it'd be more through carrot than stick, because at this point we've been pretty consistently beaten for the last year.
> General goods are tariff'ed at 35% while China is tariff'ed at 47.5%.
Incorrect. General tariffs are only on goods not already covered by CUSMA, which, other than the specific items already called out (aluminum, steel, etc.), is a very small set.
> In October, Popular Information reported that the Pentagon awarded a contract to Unusual Machines, an obscure drone company that President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., joined as an advisor in November 2024, despite having no notable experience with drones or military contracting.
[…]
> Now, another small startup funded by 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm where Trump Jr. is a partner, will receive a $620 million loan from the Defense Department, the Financial Times reported. Vulcan Elements, which currently has around 30 employees, produces rare-earth magnets, which can be used in “drones, radar systems and other military applications.” The contract was awarded just three months after 1789 invested in Vulcan.
A society in which ubiquitous, diversely-owned and operated, unlicensed drones watch the every move of police and criminals - even though that means they watch the every move of the rest of us as well - is a society in which I want to live.
The outcome of who can lawfully create and deploy eyes in the sky is the ultimate decider of the matter of who watches the watchers.
We could start health insurance companies that monitor everyone's gait and how often they exercise vs eat fast food to adjust prices. Or credit monitoring companies that watch how often you attend the casino vs. work. Or boyfriend monitoring to check for cheaters.
... the import of any foreign made drone parts is also blocked. This includes things like ESCs and flight controllers. Not just items that actually transmit radio signals like camera modules and so are traditionally regulated by the FCC re: import.
The best coverage of the FCCs over-reach attempting to regulate all parts, and then their subsequent very tiny walking of it back is Joshua Bardwell's video: https://youtu.be/Dyr87--SDuc (9m47s)
Almost all the new exceptions are for government users. The only thing relevant to human persons is the back-stepping change that as long as the components of a drone are 60% made in the USA the entire thing can be considered domestic and imported. Or US retail importers can take the risk of saying that a tx'ing camera module has alternate uses, like as a security camera, and try importing it regardless of the ban.
You're correct. The ban targets the supply chain and future imports/sales, not retroactive possession. New foreign drones cannot be certified for sale in the US market going forward. Existing drones you already own aren't being confiscated or made illegal to fly
Seeing how drone warfare has become the new hot front in 21st century conflicts like Ukraine, it's hard not to speculate on the implications of this as political unrest continues to rise in the U.S.
It's no secret that the current U.S. regime views a sizeable portion of its own civilian citizens as enemy combatants. They are already shooting people in the face and not even putting up a pretense of acting shocked at the act. Historically, it is easier to win elections than revolutions; limiting access to game-changing technology puts the power advantage even more firmly in the corner of the regime.
Merely the documentary function of small drones is a threat to the current US government - their game changing effect on the battlefield in Ukraine is (one hopes) less relevant here. Just the threat of people taking pictures of what's happening is enough for them to restrict flight over an entire large city when ICE moves in.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2025/10/02/faa-drone-zone-...
Agreed. They can’t control the narrative if journalists and activists can observe brutal state violence against citizens with their pocket drones.
I picked up an older DJI model in December and am super glad I did with recent events.
They'll probably consider you a domestic terrorist if you use it, then shoot you.
Reverse that. You'll be shot and then retroactively declared a terrorist.
Well, they can and they do. The core supporters just watch Fox where none of that ever shows up.
[flagged]
I feel like the normal reaction is to see it in both and maintain a distinction between these two entirely different contexts without ignoring the crimes of the lesser.
32 people[0] have died in ICE custody, and an additional 4 this year alone[1].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detentio...
* died while trying to flee from their crime.
They did murder a woman, but I agree that one murder is far short of a civil war. Even understanding that a single murder can be the spark that starts a fire, I don't think we're even close to that kind of scenario (contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric which has become normalized from both sides over the past 10ish years.)
>They did murder a woman, but I agree that one murder is far short of a civil war.
"violence" covers more than just murder, and there's plenty of ICE violence to go around.
Protestors and cops having tussles in the streets falls short of my bar for "brutal violence"; shooting a woman in the face certainly qualifies, but I am not seeing anything like that so widespread that it could motivate a drone ban like some people in this discussion are asserting. The political violence in America right now doesn't even come close to what was normal in living memory in the 20th century. America today is very peaceful, not that you'd think it from following the media.
The DJI ban is about China, not domestic protests.
I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's and 60's it was the federal government stepping in if things got out of hand. With what is happening today, who will step in to cool things down?
> The DJI ban is about China, not domestic protests.
It can be about both.
Two birds, one stone.
It could be, but I think you're just drawing spurious connections between two unrelated current events.
What's lacking authenticity is your assertion a well informed political cult engaged in gaming the system for its own benefit is not working multiple narratives.
If it was just about China they would not be turning TikTok, CBS into right wing platforms. They would not be announcing intent to violate 4th Amendment and go door to door without warrants.
Trump doesn't actually care about China. He prays on idiots fears with xenophobia. Trump is Palpatine. He's afraid of losing power. See also Steve Bannon at CPAC going on about how, if Dems win midterms a lot of them are going to prison.
They need to make moves to also protect their troops: https://www.thedailybeast.com/dhs-ice-hated-under-donald-tru...
Occam's Razor suggests it's not 12D chess they're playing. Just boring biological self selection. Someone in meeting brought up risk to them from drones.
Was working in EE designing motherboards for telco when manufacturing was offshored. It was plainly described as protectionism. Fear Americans with such skills could threaten Intel or copyright cartels. Educated and capable Americans capable of being manifold people who do not kowtow readily to political memes are greatly feared by the generation in charge. They've been working for years to maintain the historical narrative that serves.
Control the imports of technology to control the economy.
> "lacking authenticity"
I am sharing my genuine opinions and perspectives. I assume you are as well. Let's keep it civil.
As for tiktok/etc, I don't think that has much of anything to do with ICE and has a lot more to do with squelching legitimate anti-zionist speech. That said, it does plausibly have a lot more to do with domestic protests than a DJI drone ban, which is hardly a blanket ban on drones, and really will do next to nothing to stop people from using drones over/with/for protests. By the way, the DJI ban went through the House and Senate with bipartisan support, during Biden's presidency:
https://dronedj.com/2024/06/14/dji-ban-passes-the-house-and-...
She tried to run over a police officer.
I don't agree, but I think there is some reasonable room for disagreement. I think she was merely being reckless, and the shooter didn't earnestly fear for his life but thought he'd be able to argue he was.
In either case, it should go before a jury.
Are you enjoying the taste of the boot so much your eyes are closed in ecstasy? You think it is not brutal state violence to go door-to-door, kicking some in and extracting people who are, at worst, suspected of misdemeanor? Have you ever been the victim of a Kavanaugh stop? I have, and I live in Minneapolis and have personally witnessed ICE jumping out of SUVs, chasing someone who simply pointed at them, knock them down and get back into their SUV to go on terrorizing people.
You like this? What is wrong with you?
I wouldn't want illegal aliens in my country. They're criminals. Norway doesn't allow it, we control our borders. We could do a better job, but at least we don't have a backlog the size of the US'
Glad that Norway has the immigration problem solved *eye roll*
Tell me more about how humans are criminals for existing? You hate the idea of someone standing on your piece of dirt without your express say-so that your preference is to live under an umbrella of fear and suspicion of your neighbors?
Forgive me, this is not how I want to live. I wonder how many Norwegians who settled in Minnesota were illegal immigrants?
Entering a country illegally is a crime. We have borders. You are letting yourself be emotionally manipulated into suicidal empathy.
It's mostly in Minnesota at the moment, but has been present in many other states that didn't vote for President Trump. You can see it in news coverage, or if you're near Minneapolis you can go see it in person.
"Where’s the brutal state violence?"
This seems like a troll?
Arguably, it's in Minneapolis.
How about now:
https://xcancel.com/TheRealThelmaJ1/status/20105429076952310...
https://xcancel.com/NewYorker/status/1910856874792046893
https://xcancel.com/JusticeFwdVa/status/1914987893652705475
[flagged]
"attacks" is a stretch when the officer didn't even get hit and the vehicle was turning away from him.
I would encourage you to do some more research. Maybe get out of your bubble. The world might not be as black and white as you think it is.
"Vehicle attacks" is the lie part in your post.
Obama still has the record for deporting people.
You can do it by following the rules non-violently.
Trump/Right, enjoy seeing people in pain. That's the problem, the methods and glee in seeing the pain.
Probably so. Having the software and hardware built in the US facilitate installation of backdoors. This comes handy to control the population just at the moment when the population feels they had an hedge over ICE, the regime, etc.
You don't need a revolution narrative to criticize this ban. It's already bad policy on its own merits: it freezes innovation, hurts hobbyists and small businesses etc
These things are true, but they don't explain why the u.s. government would make it a priority to ban such technologies. saying "well, republicans are bad so they do bad things" robs us the ability to understand the world.
[delayed]
My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics (even when they did dubious stuff). The new administration has realized that there is no need for such pretense to stay in power. Previously Venezuelan attack would have been about "democracy" and "freedom" and "peace". Trump has made it clear that it is for oil.
Overall it is probably better for the world society in general that pretense is gone and the realpolitics is laid bare. The risks are no longer ambiguous but real and clearly stated and the world can plan mitigation accordingly.
No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans. That invasion turned out to be a complete disaster that probably benefited Islamist radicals more than anybody else. But it's a mistake to think that the neocons didn't believe their own bullshit. The top leadership really believed they could turn Iraq into a liberal democracy at gunpoint.
America has always been at its best when it lives up to its ideals, and at its worst when it discards those ideals. America has often been in the wrong, but on balance, the world has been better off for having a great champion of liberal democracy.
With Trump, it's not a question of believing things that are right or wrong. For the post-truth mindset, right and wrong don't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. There is only power. The second Trump presidency is the first time in modern history that America is no longer a great nation.
>No. That is excessively cynical. Even GW Bush and the neocons really thought toppling Hussein would benefit Iraqis more than just Americans.
The push into Iraq to remove Hussein was an effort to gain control over the oil and gas production in Iraq. It was favored by the domestic oil and gas industry here in the US and once we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan after Sept 11 and Bush&Co began making noise about Iraq and WoMD, the industry began digging up old geological and geophysical studies of the region to build interest and knowledge base domestically so that once our troops had control of the production areas domestic operators could move in to handle production. Industry publications had adverts for old Iraq datasets and services related to it before any invasion happened. Maybe they were just hedging their bets you say. Yeah, right. It was always about oil and gas in Iraq. They just needed to remove the thorn in their side and install a compliant government.
I can understand that point of view from a U.S. citizen's (and allied West) point of view that you think US is really ideological. But as a non-US person, even when US pretended to be ideological, there is an underlying reality of maintaining hegemony, access to resources, etc.
When there was a large scale genocide in Bangladesh by Pakistan, US not only implicitly supported Pakistan, but also attempted to block/attack India (not clear the intentions, but Soviets got involved). There are many such cases.
For rest of the world to believe that US has only best intentions, they have to be really naive. In case Saddam, would US have the same enthusiasm for democracy if it was not for oil? US has toppled democratic governments when they were not aligned to its interest.
To put it in personal terms, would anyone trust someone with their money to person who only cheats 70% of times, while is honest 30% of times? The conclusion to be had is that those in incidents of honesty aligned with the interests of the person. Not because he or she was actually a good person.
No the irony is that Trump lied about the oil - heavy sour Venezuelan oil is mostly useless to the US because we are awash in our own. He did it to experiment with “regime change light”
> My takeaway is that all previous U.S. administrations had pretense of morality and rules in both international and domestic politics
This is a perspective that continues to boggle my mind.
Every record of the United States acting internationally has been either:
Explicitly horrific (Invasion of Grenada, Vietnam, Firebombing then nuking Tokyo, Iraq etc…)
Attempts to Subvert or ignore international law (IPCC, ICC, UN…)
Or benefits some major industrial corporation (NAFTA, WTO etc…)
Please point to any type of transcendent “morality or rules” that isn’t just straight up large scale international realpolitik and propaganda around maintaining global capitalism on behalf of American based owners.
Actually I mentioned "pretense" in the sense of US pretending to be the good guy.
What do you mean by pretense?
The word pretense to me means “we’re gonna actually try this and let’s see how it goes”
The United States has literally never done that and we know that because internal documentations for pretty much anything always have some kind of American benefit Nexus it is not based on any type of foundational belief that transcends the concept of “we’re gonna do whatever the people who are the loudest owners of the political system of the United States want to do”
Everything else including: Powell going to the UN with a vile full of rice is just straight up unabashed unequivocal propaganda
The definition of pretense is (from Google):
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true. E.g. "his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well"
I would say USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has done good work overseas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...
Like all large organizations and projects they are not absolutely perfect or ethical, as you can see in the Concerns and criticism section towards the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Still, I think they made some contribution to humanity. I have seen articles saying the withdrawal of funding has definitely hurt communities USAID had been helping.
I know the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) do (or did) disease prevention work outside the US. There are other examples like these. I don’t know if the government did more good than bad, but they certainly have done some good that is not just designed to benefit American big capitalists.
Ah yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the drones running closed proprietary software via OTA updates, with encrypted data connections back to China, while being outfitted with 8k cameras, gps, lidar, etc.
Much like the TikTok ban this seems like something that could be handled through actually regulating what tech companies are allowed to do, rather than just picking on specific products and saying ‘stop that, it’s making us nervous’.
Federal laws about data collection and retention, export, and algorithmic usage… as well as laws about software update channels for hardware devices, eg requiring that it be possible to replace firmware yourself… all sorts of regulations could be put in place that leave the software and hardware markets open, by making it clear where the boundaries are. If DJI or TikTok are doing something bad, prosecute and fine them and enjoin them from doing it again… but make it clear what specific behavior you have a problem with.
We're too busy taking car companies' lines that it's reasonable they don't want people going to a local mechanic because "The data your car collected on you might get hacked and sent to China!" rather than asking "What are cars doing collecting this data, if it's such a risk?"
Reading the article, it actually doesn't. Many US-made drones are also banned.
[dead]
Yes. This administration obviously cares more about
checks notes
software privacy than political disobedience
Your tinfoil hat narrative doesn't really jive with DJI asking for audit and review more than a year ago, with no one in the federal government actually stepping up before just outright banning things they either don't want or don't understand.
[flagged]
That's not what happened. Why does this keep getting repeated? The videos from different angles are out there for everyone to see.
What do you present it as? He’s in front of her vehicle, in uniform. She sees he is there, puts it in drive, and pulls forward. The legal standard for him to use force doesn’t require that he ends up under the wheel before he can shoot.
“The officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person”, and someone gunning an SUV at you is imminent danger.
It's absolutely wild to me that two people can watch the same video and come up with completely different conclusions as to what happened.
> She sees he is there, puts it in drive, and pulls forward.
The fact that her steering was cranked to the right is proof enough that she was not intending on hitting him.
It’s reassuring to know the courts don’t apply your perfect hindsight standard.
Graham V Connor: “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
It’s wild to think you can drive towards a Fed, inches from your bumper, and not get shot because “you weren’t intending to hit him”.
Law enforcement is trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle because you risk public safety if the driver is incapacitated. Also LE is trained not to put themselves in front or back of the vehicle, since you can get run over that way. Agent Jonathan Ross did not follow his training, despite being dragged by a vehicle months earlier.
You also have to ask why Renee Good decided to leave her wife behind who tried to get in the locked passenger door. Another agent was grabbing the driver door and reaching his hand inside. What was Mr. Ross doing with his free hand? He was holding his phone in the other hand to video the encounter for some reason, even though they're supposed to have body cams.
There's no way a judge or jury looks at this and thinks the agents involved followed proper training.
>Law enforcement is trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle
Unless that vehicle is an imminent deadly threat to the officer or others, which this officer reasonably believed.
>LE is trained not to put themselves in front or back of the vehicle, since you can get run over that way.
That’s a tactic, not policy - and again, which is it: Renee isn’t going to run someone over, so he can stand there, or she is going to run someone over, so he shouldn’t stand there?
>Agent Jonathan Ross did not follow his training, despite being dragged by a vehicle months earlier.
Past incidents do not legally compel an officer to act differently in the moment. Just as how getting dragged in the past doesn’t further justify his shooting, it also doesn’t mean he should’ve done anything differently.
>You also have to ask why Renee Good decided to leave her wife behind who tried to get in the locked passenger door. Another agent was grabbing the driver door and reaching his hand inside.
Yes, that further depicts her actions as reckless, chaotic, and contributes to the perception of her driving being dangerous flight, rather than casually driving away.
>There's no way a judge or jury looks at this and thinks the agents involved followed proper training.
Training is not the legal standard, “objective reasonableness” is. An officer could (and did) reasonably believe that a woman obstructing ICE, fleeing an interaction with such haste that she left her passenger, and driving forward with him at the front bumper is in imminent danger of being struck by the SUV.
There are numerous OIS involving people in vehicles and cops on foot, and they consistently are cleared, even when the officer is in a less dangerous position than the Minnesota scenario.
He pulled his gun out before she moved the car anywhere. He was already intending to shoot her.
You do know that’s a lie easily refuted by all the video evidence, right?
Its obvious that she was resisting arrest and trying to flee. But as for the ICE agent being in front of the car... barely. I don't believe he genuinely feared for his life, he could have simply stepped out of the way. I think he saw the woman fleeing, figured he was close enough to being in harms way to justify himself, and shot the woman because he was mad at her.
I've been in situations like that in Walmart parking lots, where a car jolts forward and I have to jump out of the way, and maybe I say "That crazy bitch just tried to kill me" but while saying that I understand it to be a hyperbolic albeit justified anger at reckless driving, and that nobody was actually trying to kill me, and shooting the driver in the face instead of diving out of the way would be a suboptimal survival strategy even if homicidal intent was there.
I don't understand what jurisdiction ICE has to enforce traffic laws. We see other vehicles drive around her vehicle, so at most it was a minor inconvenience for ICE. Call the local LE on her if you don't like how she's parked in the road and they can issue a ticket.
Federal agents can arrest people for obstructing them, if you block the road they aren't obliged to defer to local cops and laws, because fucking with federal agents like that violates federal laws. Regardless, none of it justifies a murder.
[flagged]
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
As per a sibling comment:
> The bad apples metaphor originated as a warning of the corrupting influence of one corrupt or sinful person on a group: that "one bad apple can spoil the barrel". Over time the concept has been used to describe the opposite situation, where "a few bad apples" should not be seen as representative of the rest of their group. This latter version is often used in the context of police misconduct.
> The bad apples metaphor originates from the proverb "A rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor", first recorded as used in English in 1340.[1]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_apples
* https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/one-bad-apple-spoil...
And the real problem is that the highest levels of government is defending the actions of the bad-apple cop.
It is the fact that these crazy high quotas that ICE agents must meet are a high-level government policy that are 'forcing' the agents to do these crazy things (if they want to keep their jobs); of course some ICE thugs enjoy doing this and like the power trip(s).
Regardless of all the rest, what a saying meant 1000 years ago is irrelevant. I find it bizarre anyone is providing historical usage as if proves something.
You could pick endless words and sayings in English from 1000 years ago, which are entirely different now.
So what?
The modern usage is quite clear.
> The modern usage is quite clear.
Perhaps it is "clear", but it may have lost the lesson of the original adage. Perhaps that lesson is worth knowing.
idk if you know about bad apples, but the idiom isn't "one bad apple is fine and can be successfully isolated and removed."
If we're speaking about the same incident, there was no mistake. it was intentional. there has been no apology from any official source, as one would expect in the case of a tragic mistake.
Hint: the current democrat establishment is also authoritarian. you're so, so close to it!
We don't even have to go that far to realize how quickly the democratic establishment would roll over in the face of a civil war. I don't think Chuck Schumer is going to be leading an armed resistance movement anytime soon.
Change my mind, but everyone's assumption that the Senate Minority Leader, of all people, is the de facto head of the democrats and would "lead" the opposition in a civil war is asinine – whether it's Chuck Schumer or whoever replaces him.
Whataboutism fail.
The claims of whataboutism to shut down any comparison are getting mine numbingly old.
Particularly in cases like this which are simply continuing discussion on the existing subjects of the discussion.
I guess you haven't read how the government reacted to the incident. Let's put it mildly and say: is wasn't treated as a mistake or bad-apple cop.
Just an example: "Vance said the ICE officer was clearly justified in shooting Good. The officer was clearly acting in self-defense, Vance said. He framed Good as "a victim of left-wing ideology" who was spurred by an alleged network of politically motivated groups to interfere with law enforcement."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-vance-joins...
And not one apology or sympathetic comment towards the deceased. Shame on everyone. What a sad timeline.
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
Do you have any citations for that? Jonathon Ross's entire chain of command including Sec of DHS and the President has justified the killing in multiple public statements. There has not been any official admission that it was a mistake, tragic nor description of Jonathan Ross as a "bad" apple or anything.
>You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions
When have Trump's administration ever suggested it was either? So far they have said:
-it was an act of self-defense by Ross
-Ms. Good ran over Ross
-Ross has immunity even if he committed murder
-Ms. Good was very disrespectful to law enforcement
And anyone who has seen more than just the one the video the Trump administration wanted everyone to see knows the Trump admin is lying though their teeth.
I have seen multiple high level leader say that the shooting was warranted and ok. They expressed happiness over the killing. That includes Trump, Vance and Kristi Noem. They praised the shooter and threatened others.
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
It was not bad apple. It was logical conclusion of ICE tactic and strategy. They also kidnap people, beat them up, throw them out somewhere else on the street. They throw tear gas into insides of cars or just randomly as bye package to citizens. They intentionally ram cars and cause traffic accidents.
Also, concretely, the lower level ICE members have seen to:
1.) do stuff like pointing a gun at a woman and saying "you did not learned from it".
2.) Destroyed memorial of the killed woman.
3.) Been heard to say she was "fucking bitch".
It was not bad apple. He is their hero and exactly where their tactic will go.
It's not just one bad apple. There have been 16 ICE shootings resulting in four deaths during Trump's 2nd term and 32 people died in ICE detention during 2025. There are multiple videos out of Minneapolis & St. Paul since Renee Good's shooting where ICE have broken down the door of someone's home, beat a man and left him bleeding in another part of town, accosted someone at a gas station, tried to enter the home of a family where the DoorDash lady had fled for safety, threatened the death to drivers whom they accused of following them, posed for a picture with an influencer yelling about how they executed one of the protestors, and caused chaos at a high school leading to public schools temporarily shutting down.
This is officially sanctioned domestic terrorism against the citizens of Minnesota and no American should stand for it.
[flagged]
It's no secret that VC's are profiting massively from this administration. And all comments critical of the current regime are getting downvoted on HN. Something adds up.
this is not really about VCs as much as wealthy tech billionaires who have learned that no one listened to their political thoughts & beliefs, but they can now use their technology & money to circumvent the need to gain a democratic mandate. Peter Thiel has literally stated this strategy, and you've recently watched them all fall in line, even if it meant massive whiplash from their previously stated positions.
Saying "Something adds up" without elaboration is a dog whistle for conspiracy theory weirdos.
[flagged]
HN isn't reddit.
that's exactly what I meant.
there's also something weird going on with the posts, i swear i saw the thread change in-between logins.
Reminder: when you are logged out, HN will show static cached content. Since there's no login session it doesn't have to compute parts of the page unique to the user.
When huge stories hit, and HN is overloaded, browing while logged out is the way to get through.
oh k thank you.
Trump will be gone in 3 years. Maybe fewer depending on his health. It's unlikely that this change will have any meaningful effect on US democracy.
On the other hand, little drones are effectively munitions now. That means drone manufacturing capacity is effectively munitions manufacturing capacity. We're giving potential adversaries economies of scale building things that may be used to kill us.
I'm generally a pretty free market guy but the war in Ukraine has changed some things. My main complaint with this law is that it is so US focused; I'd be fine with drones built in Europe or Japan or other allied nations.
The US has been having significant (and increasing) issues with democracy for a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding_in_the_...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/how-stop-m...
The real threat to democracy was the intense lawfare that Trump was subjected to
I don’t know if we should be so sure that he will be gone in three years. There is no incentive for him to relinquish control peacefully. We’ll have to give him a plea bargain, or a pardon of sorts, to incentivise him stepping down. Without one his back will be against a wall (or iron bars in this case), and he will gladly escalate to stay in power to avoid incarceration.
Since when does he need to worry about incarceration? He's already been found guilty on 34 felony counts and nothing happened.
I'm far more concerned with the younger, smarter and just as evil minnions who are currently learning from the master how naked & deep the corruption can go without consequence. President Vance and VP Rubio may be less shocking but could be even worse for everyone.
That logic also means they shouldn't be banned under 2nd amendment protections, no?
Certainly the spirit of the 2nd amendment is to guarantee a widely distributed technology that gives citizens a check on their government.
No, you can think of them more like unarmed artillery shells. Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
Even if they were considered arms for the purpose of 2a this isn’t a ban on drones but a specific manufacturer. They government can definitely refuse to grant a manufacturer license to sell on this country.
You may be surprised to learn, but yes... You can legally buy most weapons you can imagine, assuming you have a big enough wallet:
https://azaoinc.com/shop/ols/products/rpg-heat-round-destruc...
That's not to say there aren't some legal hoops to jump through.
>> Can you walk down the street to buy some artillery munitions?
No I need to go to a flea market for that.
It's not a specific manufacturer; it will impact US-made drones too, and based on how it's being rolled out is intended to shut down decent quality, inexpensive and easily-acquired drown sales - exactly what say, a journalist might want.
After Mcviegh, shouldn’t all U-Haul’s be seen as unarmed vehicular large IEDs? A drone isn’t like an artillery shell because an artillery shell is for putting in an artillery gun. A drone is for flying. Just because something can be modified to serve as some sort of weapon, does make it basically a weapon.
It was quite common in the wake of McVeigh and other large vehicle attacks that they should be seen as weapons and licensing strengthened.
The fact you can drive a 26,000 lb GVWR truck without any special license is something special we have in America compared to most of say, Europe. It's actually pretty mind blowing anyone can just rent 26 ft diesel 26,000 lb truck and get in and drive it on the highway.
It is testament to the fact there are a few vestiges of freedom left in America. Not much, but a few vestiges, since such trucks were around before the regulation hysteria of the late 20th century and 21st century.
Pretty sure you can find inert artillery shells for sale if you cjeck your thrift and military surplus store.
>Trump will be gone in 3 years. Maybe fewer depending on his health.
He incited an insurrection last time he had power, in a desperate attempt to stay in power. Congress impeached him for it, but spineless Republicans refused to convict him for it. Then when he got power again, he pardoned everyone who took part in the insurrection. He's talked about having a 3rd term, so if you think he's just going to go away at the end of this term, you are mistaken.
I wouldn’t call DJI game-changing technology anymore.
We have a very healthy FPV community here in the states perfectly capable of building drones from parts just like Ukraine is doing.
that's not really comparable with the commercial/hobbyist market that DJI serves. These are not people who are going to research & build their own drones, or seek out small manufacturers; they're the ones who buy of Amazon and want the use of a drone, not drones as a lifestyle.
Maybe, or maybe it’s just good policy to not import a network of drones from an adversary to democracies across the world, which includes the EU most importantly as China helps Russia with its invasion of Ukraine and is gearing up for some activity in Taiwan.
People can just record all this stuff on their iPhones that they already have. You don’t need a DJI drone to record police malfeasance. Maybe you do in China or Iran though. In Iran they are just mowing people down. In China you get disappeared. Interesting that there are no protests about those things though. I guess they just have better social media marketing.
I think propping up the domestic small drone industry is clearly in America's national strategic interest. Hobbyists may not like it, but their toys have become potent weapons of war, so it's important for America that we don't count on importing all of them from China.
im in canada, but my mayor has been sharing details about emergency construction faily by including drone recorded footage of it.
its very useful reporting updates about when the water will be back at full capacity.
I'm in Calgary too (I assume this is what you're referencing). In the wake of this crisis (again!) and the more general decline in trust - both in politicians and your neighbors - a sociologist on the radio was talking about how communication, and specifically drone footage, helps build trust and connect emotionally with the public. We're trying to get people to use less water, and you can scold them (to no effect) or show them actual overhead pictures of the damage and impact.
> as China helps Russia with its invasion of Ukraine
America is helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine.
No it's not. This is factually incorrect.
Even as recently as this past week the United States Navy has tracked down and seized Russian "shadow fleet" tankers which are operating despite American and European sanctions, and did so with Russian naval vessels nearby and despite strong protests and anger from Moscow. Hopefully Europe can step up its game and do so too.
But do you know who is helping Russia besides China? India. Iran, South America (Brazil, &c.), plenty of other countries. They've given no money, no aid, and are all too happy to buy illicit Russian oil.
By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
> When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us.
The 1980s Cold Warriors would've been flabbergasted at how cheap taking out the Russian military at the knees would wind up being.
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
Don't forget, they choked on Afghanistan too.
[dead]
Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies.
The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war.
Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost.
Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
A) He’s absolutely saying they were free.
B) Ironic that you say some people have no ability to see the wider perspective while falling for the broken window fallacy of economics.
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger.
> The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us.
Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter?
Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.
> America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties
Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
Some 150,000,000 people in Russia vs some 450,000,000 in EU. I think it is unrealistic and I think Russia / Putin knows it.
Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
You need to get off reddit, ASAP.
Interesting that so many here are speculating that this ban is to stop "freedom fighters" in the US and not the obvious case that the US has wanted to reduce dependence on China in areas of critical technology.
Drones are not going away in the US, they will just not be made by their primary political adversary. Let's not be hyperbolic, the US is nowhere close to having a revolution or civil War. People need to stop getting their primary world view from doom scrolling instagram or reddit.
I will believe this argument when everything else from domestic appliances to phones is not also made by “their primary political adversary”.
It's this now, but 3D printers, Meshtastic, and the ESP32 all seem likely to catch the ire of the administration if some deal is not done in the coming years.
I've been saying it for ages, but a decent easily available western equivalent to the ESP32 (meaning easy WiFi) needs to happen, and until it does there will be a giant hole in the middle of the entire maker universe, which increasingly acts as the prototyping stage for commercialized gadgetry.
[delayed]
I agree on the need to create an ESP32 equivalent. But the ESP32 doesn't really correlate to DJI here. DJI collects a massive amount of telemetry data and terrain data, forces the average user to upload this data, and isn't exactly forthcoming about what is collected or how it is used.
An ESP32 can, for the most part, be fully audited in what it is sending. Yes, the wireless drivers are binary blobs, but the developer has extensive control over the device, and it is easy to monitor/filter/firewall the data sent.
3D printers, as a general category, are also more similar to the ESP32 than to DJI.
> DJI collects a massive amount of telemetry data and terrain data
At first I found it hard to believe that this is data they wouldn't get more reliably, more extensively from a satellite. But then I imagine, if you were a bad actor, you wouldn't want all the video, all the exact terrain data, etc, but maybe only that near certain points of interest like energy infrastructure, transportation, etc. So this, paired with satellite data is super powerful.
Then again, for most of the US, Google street view exists so there's that, a lot of the data is already out there.
You are right. Also, it's not just data from the US, it's data from around the world. It also comes in real-time or near real-time, so you gain insight into where drones are actively flying. If you've managed to fingerprint interesting users in some way, you now have stats on where they are, what they are deeming interesting to look at, and so on. You're also getting much better imagery and views of things you are not going to get from a satellite.
This is not about recreating google maps data. The US banning DJI drones is really a necessity at this point. It's not a complete solution to the problems at hand, but there is no point in supporting China in this way.
And China has its own satellites anyhow.
I feel like blocking DJI is just politics of “we have have to do something, anything” and “hey look, we did things” even though those things are irrelevant.
Bambu was made by a bunch of former DJI executives, and copied a lot of their dubious business practices.
Indeed, but they also took the magic part of their product development philosophy of focusing on making the whole end-to-end process for users absolutely solid, which both companies do better than anyone else in those segments.
> I've been saying it for ages, but a decent easily available western equivalent to the ESP32 (meaning easy WiFi) needs to happen
These solutions are priced well for commercial and industrial solutions at scale.If necessary one can use any cheap hobby solution for initial development and then port to an industrial-class SoC solution. We've done this a few times during pandemic era shortages; using the RP2040 to get through prototyping and development and then switching the design to an industrial-grade chip.
What's missing from these parts which makes people reach for ESP32 by default instead? (I don't have any experience with ESP32.)
The TI parts seem a bit expensive in small quantities, but the Microchip and SiliLabs parts are like $6-7 in single units from Digi-Key. Is it just that the dev kits are in the >$50 price range which puts people off compared to ESP32?
> These solutions are priced well for commercial and industrial solutions at scale.
Translation: they're expensive, and getting them working involves jumping through hoops more complex than simply getting boards off Amazon and launching VS Code. They aren't equivalent, and the sneering isn't helping.
It is failing to understand this that opens the door to DJI and Bambu, who unsurprisingly prioritize user experience and predictability, which is a major factor in why in open competition they keep wiping the floor with everyone.
I'm in favor of tighter regulation on drone imports, both for national security reasons and to try to jumpstart a US drone industry.
Not allowing _any_ foreign made components, however, is insane, as is not even auditing DJI when they didn't put up a fight. They have to know they're just killing the small drone industry completely.
Limiting competition does not jump start anything it simply introduces complacency.
There’s currently nobody in the us small drone market to get complacent. Is there a single company that designs and builds sub $10,000 drones in the US?
> CTO & Co-Founder, GovHawk.
Checks out. More legislation boosts your business.
Both making and removing regulation boosts my business, as my clients care about changes. That said, I assure you that one regulation getting made out of millions has no effect on my bottom line.
The drone thing is a personal opinion. If the US ends up in a war (whether it’s one I agree with or not, likely not), I don’t want millions of drones to be remote controllable by the folks we’re fighting.
This is silly. You are worried that china will remotely control my DJI mini during a war?
How will it even get out of my closet to create such havoc for 26 minutes before it drops out of the sky begging me for a new battery?
Less drones for you, more for the military.
There is no real downsides for the current gov’t here.
I build hobby scale drones for fun, mostly sub250g micros with no military value.
I’d pay more for domestic parts, because I think the capability is strategically valuable, and the quality of Chinese stuff is super variable.
There’s basically no industry here because the aliexpress parts are so cheap, so I support some protectionism, understanding that it will make the hobby more expensive.
I think you’re probably right, but I think going for million dollar drones from anduril while wiping the rest of the market is a miscalculation.
What makes you think U.S.-manufactured parts would be less "variable" than Chinese stuff? I would guess the opposite to be the case: reliability comes from scale, and there's very little scale in U.S. electronics manufacturing in the first place.
Chinese stuff ranges from cheap to expensive, super reliable and super unreliable, too.
Where is the ban of cheap motors, escs, cameras, radios from aliexpress? How does this affect hobby drone market at all?
Based on the article, it says it also bans motors, controllers, etc. pretty much all major parts.
Wow, the title of the article really buries the lead as this is a much bigger deal than banning new versions of fully assembled drones made by a Chinese company.
I can’t even think of another country that makes 4S Lipo batteries or the motors or the ESC’s or the VTX or the GPS module..
Not surprising. Asymmetrically-powerful personal technology is a threat to the State's monopoly of force and power. Same reason for US juristictions banning hardware "hacking" devices, firearms manufacturing, 3D printing - hell, even building and maintaining a PC is becoming untenable. The writing is on the wall for what is next.
This. Can't have a hand grenade. A peasant might take the whole entry team with them if they had one of those.
Binary explosive materials are freely available at your local general store.
So are Molotov’s.
It’s really not quite like that. https://youtu.be/Dyr87--SDuc?si=EPmTEPQfFtaWV2tt
The impact is more for bind and fly drones that are FCC approved so you don’t need a HAM license to operate them.
To me it also looks like there are also loopholes you could drive a truck through in terms of importing partially assembled drones that can be assembled by the end user as well as approving components by making their use not exclusive to UAS.
What actually happens remains to be seen because it really depends on what the enforcement actually looks like and how well work arounds work.
I think the real goal of the regulators is to ensure an onshore supply chain for government use and there won’t be a focus on civilian usage.
They're gonna TACO this.
It's too fast with no viable replacement path in sight.
Classic trump administration. Do something splashy, then when the media hype dies there is a giant void and no plan whatsoever
They're not that hard to make. USA will be fine. If some of the software and hardware manufacturing expertise can be built here thats great.
>They're not that hard to make.
Yeah, with parts from China...but that's banned too.
Homegrown factories and supply chains don't just pop up overnight though. So in the near term this just means zero drones and a disorderly transition.
Intentionally triggering that only really makes sense if you think a major confrontation is imminent and chaos is an acceptable price to pay to force speed.
They're hard to develop. That is proven by the fact that DJI is by far the industry leader, and everyone else is trailing.
We're not talking about duct-taping a Go Pro to an OTS drone.
They don't need to be that hard to develop. It's not like you need a return to base feature. Sort of like wanting to learn how to fly a plane, but not take off and land the plane. You don't need to have the full feature set of a DJI drone to make it a weapon. You also don't need to worry about the battery life of coming back, so you've essentially doubled your distance capabilities, so maybe a stronger radio. Do you need the video return signal too? I guess that would be some decent PR footage on the nightly news propaganda stations though, so might be worth the expense??? You also don't need to be burdened with the GeoFencing features of a DJI, but would be funny to see a bunch of attack drones all hover just outside a map boundary because the target has their base listed in the GeoFence library!
So while not duct-taping a GoPro (we'd use Gaff tape anyways), they could use bailing wire with a grenade or c4 bundle to attach it.
I think you're pretty confused about what most of these drones are doing.
DJI drones aren't being used as weapons platforms in the US...
They're being used for industry (agriculture, real estate, land surveillance, fire monitoring)
No one gives a shit that it's not difficult to make a flying grenade. They care that all the features you're in here mouthing off about as "not important" are actually important.
Just looking at the injection molded shell of my Mavic Mini makes me cringe when thinking about the startup cost. It's the plastic shell; not the motors, nor the circuitry, nor the optical parts...and to think you could build that in the USA is laughable. DJI releases 2-3 models every 2-3 years... if you could even find a company in the USA machining the steel molds at that frequency (i don't think it exists) how are you going to afford the bill?
We'll just let Boeing build them. They have the know-how.
Plus, if we're talking military drones vs civilian drones, they wouldn't need plastic shells. That'd just be more weight reducing distance. Then again, military industrial complex would probably try to make them stealth capable, be designed by committee from 22 nation states, be micro-USB mandated to comply with EU standards, blah blah. Yeah, you're right, we'd never be able to build them here.
It's been on the table since before 2024, the hobbyist community has been bracing for it for a while. Huawei devices were made illegal to sell in the US fairly suddenly as well.
I think the US military itself relies on big, sophisticated and expensive UAVs. Is there any US-only supply-chain to build millions of cheap drones for military applications? I don't agree with the ban, but if it forces a domestic supply chain, even for civilian use, that might be more tenable. But last I looked, I couldn't find any US vendor that makes similar quality drones, even if they manufacture overseas.
That these are banned but Chinese made robot vacuums and other appliances are not points to this not being about protecting individual Americans and more about protecting national interests (drones can map out terrain in a lot more detail and are mobile outside of your bedroom, and can be trivially weaponized)
My Chinese made robot vaccuum can't get from one end of a room to the other without bouncing off the walls multiple times. Makes it kind of hard to deliver ordinance like that. I really don't think these Chinese made robot vacuums you're afraid of are much of a threat.
This ban has more to do with how much geodetic data is being transmitted to China and less to do with the actual drone technology. People flying DJI drones are mapping the US on China's behalf, and that too with great fidelity.
Satellite synthetic aperture radar can have a resolution of like 6 inches. I can't imagine consumer grade drones are significantly improving on this, and even if they could do better I would question the utility of higher resolution data for anything military related.
> I can't imagine consumer grade drones are significantly improving on this
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073808
It's not necessarily better than 6 inches. But it's pretty decent, down to 0.3m, roughly 12 inches.
> even if they could do better I would question the utility of higher resolution data for anything military related.
Oh boy. Suffice to say that it definitely is useful for many things military related.
> Oh boy. Suffice to say that it definitely is useful for many things military related.
Can you give a single example?
I always thought the risk was more that such a drone fleet could be remotely commandeered for real-time updates on target locations. It's something that could only be done once, but wow, it would be a real advantage to the attacker.
Do we think anything secret is being conveyed when it comes to US terrain? It's not like there are too many secrets of that kind remaining. The Chinese can probably just buy any maps they need in any case. (perhaps a drone's potential to map or even affect the wifi landscape is more interesting as a security threat)
The potential for industrial espionage is perhaps more interesting, as drones are used for security, agriculture, and pretty much everything else you can shake a stick at.
Yet DJI drones don't automatically stream raw imagery or mapping data back to China by default
Google and others have already mapped practically everything. I don't buy that China is using access to DJI drones to map anything. Seriously, what data set can they provide that isn't already public domain?
I wonder how much this is because the war in Ukraine showed that drone manufacturing capacity is a strategic asset?
The administration best set about seizing the means of production.
Doesn't Ukraine also import most of its drone technology?
Hence they are vulnerable to their suppliers....
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that importation of drones is a terrific asset, rather than a liability. Maybe you think that lesson would not apply to the USA, but that wouldn't be a lesson learned from Ukraine, rather the lesson learned would be the opposite.
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that a robust drone supply chain is very important. For some countries it doesn't matter if this supply chain is rooted in China, for others it matters a lot.
The lesson from Ukraine is the importance of having access to drones. It doesn't take any remarkable mental feats to realize that if your primary source of drones is China, then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
> then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
Some might call that poor pre-planning. If you're about to go to war with your biggest supplier, you'd be well advised to stock up on supplies before firing the first shot.
Reducing the diversity of your supply chain and instead making your self so incredibly vulnerable that all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain (because imports have long been banned) is way less robust than maintaining imports. If you actually wanted what you claim, you'd allow imports while taxing or subsidizing until they look roughly break even with domestic offerings.
> all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain
"All you need to do to defeat the US is completely destroy its entire industrial base"
Are you suggesting to attack China, as that's the US' industrial base
Can you explain to me the thought process of how you got from my comment to yours?
Your position is completely untenable here and relies on it being easier to destroy multiple 'industrial bases' plus the US drone industry rather than your straw man of just the "entire" US industrial base.
Even going off your theory that the US drone industry is not easily sabotaged, it can't possibly be easier to sabotage the US drone industry plus all the import pathways (which you would otherwise have to re-establish). That is why you chose this dismissive fake-quote rather than address what I've said.
I am not arguing it is easier to destroy the world's industrial capacity than just the US industrial capacity. I am saying that in the situation where you have so utterly devastated the US mainland that it is incapable of producing drones, the war is over. If you defeat the US then you defeat the US.
Of course I am rather dismissive of the claim that this is a small feat. I accuse you of not fully thinking through what exactly it would take to fubar domestic drone production.
"And with no American-made drones comparable to the category leaders, it’ll be a while before any company steps up to offer one."
The problem is that it would be extremely risky for a US company to spin up a comparable US built drone. Even if they can match the price/quality point, at any given time the government could remove the ban, killing the entire business model.
How does this interact with this[1] recent decision? Maybe I'm stupid but I don't think the article really explains the US Commerce Dept. decision outcome when the FCC ban is still in effect.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-commerce-department-d...
There's also this case?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/supreme-court-ta...
Reading through the notice from the FCC, it sure feels like they've also banned a lot of the critical components that go into line of sight RC airplanes. It really sucks, I kind of wonder if this won't crush the hobby and cause a lot vendors like Horizon or Hobby King to go under if they can't bring in planes or parts. Maybe they think someone is going to do a terrorism with their foamie Crack Yak or Turbo Timber..
News next week : "Donald Trump Jr opens US Drone company with exclusive import license from China."
> DJI responded publicly that month that they had nothing to hide, and subsequently spent a year trying to convince the U.S. government to begin the audit. But no federal agency even began
There's your answer. There was never any concern over Americans data being sent to China.
Also they didn't "Follow through", they simply let the clock run out without even evaluating DJI's reponse to the claims.
It’s hard to say on this one. There is a pretty extensive history of Chinese govt spying via consumer products [0]. Having worked formerly with the intelligence community, they tend not to tip their hand when they are aware of asymmetrical information.
It’s plausible that the determination was made that there were backdoors/spy equipment/whatever in the products, so no audit or smooth talking from corp representatives would make a difference in this case, given the supply chain remains controlled by an adversary. If you don’t trust that an audit can be executed with integrity then there’s not much point in conducting one at all.
The fact that this has been extended to all foreign drones does make that feel like more of a political statement though, or at the very least the original intent is being hijacked for political theater.
0. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa...
The link you shared details hacker groups exploiting consumer hardware. This is very different than selling compromised, backdoored hardware.
Intent is of course tricky to prove, but there is overwhelming evidence that’s Chinese government views the role of Chinese companies in the consumer electronics supply chain as a strategic, exploitable asset.
> Huawei has a history of IP theft and security incidents related to backdoors and malware going back nearly 20 years.
> ZTE has been accused of including unusual backdoors in some products and was caught selling equipment containing U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea, in violation of trade agreements. … Security researchers, however, noted that the backdoors were “highly unusual” and appeared intentional because they were supporting software updates.
Source: https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/112475/documents/...
It's doubtful that there is currently a backdoor or anything that would fail an audit.
The problem is the software updates. Whoever controls those keys has an entire domestic fleet a single firmware update away. Probably won't even be DJI, but some either state or non-state hacker that happens to acquire the update keys.
It'll have a shiny gold paint job, and the data will go to palantir instead. Or it would, if it ever reached the buyers.
Uh Next week? You’re late to the party.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/drone-company...
Wow.. my comment on that was means as a little tounge in cheek. Isn't there some expression about when life imitates parody?
Hard to ignore the parallel with other tech bans: vague data-risk claims, no public evidence, no transparent threat model, and zero nuance between consumer toys and critical infrastructure. If this logic were applied consistently, half of consumer electronics would be in trouble
I'm sure the fact that Donald J. Trump Jr. is heavily involved in a drone and drone motor company named Unusual Machines has nothing to do with this.
I'm surprised this part isn't getting more attention.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1956955/000168316824...
https://theintercept.com/2025/07/28/donald-trump-jr-son-dron...
So unless I'm reading this incorrectly, DJI can keep selling existing models forever in the US? The US just can't get updated versions of drones?
Until the FCC wakes up and decides to change any detail of how they certify (which can happen easily), and then everything becomes no longer certified, and you'd basically have a full blanket ban of any transmitter, receiver, esc, motor, completed drone (or anything else that even incidentally emits EMI) that wasn't built in the US. The cards are set up there that it's extremely easy for them to just "incidentally" change a few things and hey no more drones of almost any sort, or RC planes, or hell parts for a whole lot of things.
Yep
I wonder how long until Canada gets pressured into doing the same, just like we always do?
I haven't kept up to date but does the US have that much more leverage over Canada anymore? Last I checked we have tariffs on most exports, including crude, wood, steel and aluminium (probably missing a bunch). General goods are tariff'ed at 35% while China is tariff'ed at 47.5%.
They could get us to ban DJI for sure but I'd assume it'd be more through carrot than stick, because at this point we've been pretty consistently beaten for the last year.
> General goods are tariff'ed at 35% while China is tariff'ed at 47.5%.
Incorrect. General tariffs are only on goods not already covered by CUSMA, which, other than the specific items already called out (aluminum, steel, etc.), is a very small set.
for now we are still putting the 100% tariff on cars that cant even drive on our roads, on the US' behalf
The threat of invading is hard to beat.
you mean like the time they invaded and took Washington DC?
Canada being the only country to successfully invade the US
or did I mix up my pronoun references again?
See also perhaps from November 2024 (post-election), "Drone company's stock soars after it appoints Donald Trump Jr. to advisory board":
* https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/drone-company...
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/27/donald-trump...
Also, from 2025:
> In October, Popular Information reported that the Pentagon awarded a contract to Unusual Machines, an obscure drone company that President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., joined as an advisor in November 2024, despite having no notable experience with drones or military contracting.
[…]
> Now, another small startup funded by 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm where Trump Jr. is a partner, will receive a $620 million loan from the Defense Department, the Financial Times reported. Vulcan Elements, which currently has around 30 employees, produces rare-earth magnets, which can be used in “drones, radar systems and other military applications.” The contract was awarded just three months after 1789 invested in Vulcan.
* https://popular.info/p/update-trump-jr-backed-startup-receiv...
Ok national defense sure but how about Trump Jr has to divest from drone companies first?
Okay I'm gonna build drones on my homestead then
A society in which ubiquitous, diversely-owned and operated, unlicensed drones watch the every move of police and criminals - even though that means they watch the every move of the rest of us as well - is a society in which I want to live.
The outcome of who can lawfully create and deploy eyes in the sky is the ultimate decider of the matter of who watches the watchers.
The stakes are significant.
We could start health insurance companies that monitor everyone's gait and how often they exercise vs eat fast food to adjust prices. Or credit monitoring companies that watch how often you attend the casino vs. work. Or boyfriend monitoring to check for cheaters.
Not to mention the targeted ad potential.
So you can’t even build your own DIY drone?
Sure you can. DJI is banned though.
You can because unless you rock the boat you're unlikely to be charged. But according to the FCC original statement, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-416839A1.pdf
... the import of any foreign made drone parts is also blocked. This includes things like ESCs and flight controllers. Not just items that actually transmit radio signals like camera modules and so are traditionally regulated by the FCC re: import.
The best coverage of the FCCs over-reach attempting to regulate all parts, and then their subsequent very tiny walking of it back is Joshua Bardwell's video: https://youtu.be/Dyr87--SDuc (9m47s)
Almost all the new exceptions are for government users. The only thing relevant to human persons is the back-stepping change that as long as the components of a drone are 60% made in the USA the entire thing can be considered domestic and imported. Or US retail importers can take the risk of saying that a tx'ing camera module has alternate uses, like as a security camera, and try importing it regardless of the ban.
"FCC Updates Covered List to Exempt Certain Drones and Releases FAQs" https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-updates-covered-list-exempt...
Alternative headline: The US Government Banned All New Foreign Drones.
As every foreign-made drone is now on the FCC’s “Covered List.
Source? Tfa says only new models of drones are banned.
You're correct. The ban targets the supply chain and future imports/sales, not retroactive possession. New foreign drones cannot be certified for sale in the US market going forward. Existing drones you already own aren't being confiscated or made illegal to fly
I thought the drones had geofencing, so it should be possible to geofence the entire US and block them that way?
For now. FCC could change this in a couple of months. There is talk of canceling FCC certifications for Autel/DJI.
sounds like the kind of thing that the supreme court would strike down, if the law has specifically named drones as disallowed