Im glad that Solo has at least, some sort of encryption between the base and solo!
I guess if you never registered it your ok!
food for though. skynet is knocking.....
Good thing I sold my DJI products!! Check this out!
- Thread starter CanadianSolo
- Start date
Im glad that Solo has at least, some sort of encryption between the base and solo!
I guess if you never registered it your ok!
food for though. skynet is knocking.....
Once again the creator of all this misery "DJI" is trying to close the gate a long time after the horse has bolted!!! Making a nice little packet of money into the bargain whilst trying to make themselves a good image with the authorities. They are the greediest, hypocritical company I have ever seen and I for one am more than glad that I don't own any of their products!!! Long live Solo
I think that was a well done story. I certainly support the ability of, say, an airport to detect intruding drones so they can at least alert pilots to the presence of a drone.
As mentioned, taking control of a drone isn't currently legal.
I wouldn't be opposed to taking control of a drone illegally flying in restricted airspace around an airport if it becomes legal and can be done safely with no damage to the drone or anything else.
It's just a matter of time before some idiot flies a drone in the path of an airplane and causes major damage or perhaps a crash. I'd rather see that prevented before than regulated after.
This would certainly be better than just blasting them out of the sky, hoping the wreckage doesn't injure somebody on the ground.
As mentioned, taking control of a drone isn't currently legal.
I wouldn't be opposed to taking control of a drone illegally flying in restricted airspace around an airport if it becomes legal and can be done safely with no damage to the drone or anything else.
It's just a matter of time before some idiot flies a drone in the path of an airplane and causes major damage or perhaps a crash. I'd rather see that prevented before than regulated after.
This would certainly be better than just blasting them out of the sky, hoping the wreckage doesn't injure somebody on the ground.
George Mason University
In their study, they put it this way, “one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace.” (or one death every 400 years)
Researchers: Airplane drone strikes pose negligible risk
In their study, they put it this way, “one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace.” (or one death every 400 years)
Researchers: Airplane drone strikes pose negligible risk
A drone recently struck a military helicopter over Manhattan, so I guess we're safe for a while.
Or you could just avoid doing any reckless flying in a place you shouldn't.
Last edited:
Which is what us normal enthusiasts do as normal procedure, unfortunately the buy and fly brigade that could not care less what they do don't think like us. It is this type of person that has the situation what it is today, as is the way of this world the majority always suffer for the mindless minority as good stuff never makes the new's only the bad!!
Bill
The thing is that they'll admit this is for authorities doing their duty, but the reality is it's a commercial product, so if you believe that this will only ever be used by law abiding officials and only ever from restricted airspace locations, I would say you need to broaden your world view
Trust me- I work for the government...The thing is that they'll admit this is for authorities doing their duty, but the reality is it's a commercial product, so if you believe that this will only ever be used by law abiding officials and only ever from restricted airspace locations, I would say you need to broaden your world view
Can you imagine why anyone else would want to pay for one of these or use one away from a sensitive location?The thing is that they'll admit this is for authorities doing their duty, but the reality is it's a commercial product, so if you believe that this will only ever be used by law abiding officials and only ever from restricted airspace locations, I would say you need to broaden your world view
I can't so give me some ideas.
There's a very large, profitable subset of journalism and photography dedicated to publishing pictures of celebrities in compromising positions. They use drones, and they really are invading privacy. Being able to track down the operator might be a good tool to stop it. Of course that's a fairly small group of people, but I could see it being used by private investigators to gather evidence of stalking or harassment before getting the police involved, etc.
Years ago when they first made cell phone monitoring illegal a friend of mine bought up a bunch of scanners that didn't have the 800MHz bands locked out. His argument was that the signal was passing through his house, so technically the cell phone user was trespassing on his property. If you don't want him listening, scramble/encrypt your signal. He didn't really bother listening, he just didn't like the idea of being told he couldn't do it. I could totally see him buying one of these if the price was right.
Actually the DJI drones have encryption too. What DJI did was update the firmware to include a channel they could read/piggyback on. Also there wasn't any way around registering your product with DJI, so they have the id/email. Since 3DR isn't in drone business I don't think they would add code in a firmware update to work with Aeroscope... but stranger things have happened. They are after all in a partnership with DJI for the site scanning software.
Ok, the multiple monitoring agencies of your government for a start, and not for monitoring airports
So you have to ask, what is the point of this piece. Why did the editor, DJI and the government agency agree to work together on this in good light, with multiple camera angles and at multiple locations. Is this publicity going to sell more DJI drones? Is this publicity going to improve the public image of DJI amongst pilots? What's in it for all three?
Now I will admit that sadly there are probably a lot of mesmerised people out there, like those who cue for days for a slightly different iPhone, who would watch this and think 'yea, more control over us... now I can't inadvertently fly my drone into a plane when my brain farts because they will email or call me first, so now I don't even have to check what I'm doing or think, yippee! ', but it just sent shivers down my spine and I don't even own a DJI product.
There is obviously no comercial benefit to letting the public know about a product they can't buy, that spies on them and releases their personal information to anyone using it (unless they believe everyone is stupid). If airport authorities really wanted to use this to intercept, ground and prosecute, would they tell you exactly how it works (so the bad guys can hack around it)? So why tell us about it? I would guess that government agencies already have this tech and its being used at will, and that this seemingly journalistic piece is a softener, typical of what the government/media has done for decades to put ideas in our minds so when the truth, or their version of it, is released we are all conditioned for it and don't get alarmed.
So you're now thinking I wear a tin foil hat, but did you notice how there was absolutely no real criticism of the privacy invasion by the 'journalist', which from a public perspective should have been at least part of the focus of the piece... I mean hello, you gave your info to DJI for guarantee and tech service and now some airport bozo at best knows how much disposable income you have for your hobby and that you're not at home guarding the rest of your treasure. for me that gave it away as contrived as opposed to investigative, as well as the DJI front man (no doubt the highest paid employee) gifting them with his time.
Similar threads
