BERLIN, GERMANY - SEPTEMBER 04: A DJI Inspire 1 quadcopter drone flies at the DJI stand at the 2015 IFA consumer electronics and appliances trade fair on September 4, 2015 in Berlin, Germany. The 2015 IFA will be open to the public from September 4-9. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Congress is likely to vote on the “Countering CCP Drones Act” during what House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office has dubbed “China week,” which is slated for later this month.
The drone bill was included as a proposed amendment to the annual military budget reauthorization in June. It is designed to prohibit the use of drones made by Da Jing Innovations (DJI) in the U.S. by adding the company to the Federal Communications Commission’s list of equipment considered to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security.
Representative Elise Stefanik, who sponsored the bill, noted in her announcement: “DJI drones pose the national security threat of TikTok, but with wings.” (TikTok’s purported national security threat has yet to be publicly substantiated by lawmakers.)
Accordingly, the DJI bill’s sponsors haven’t cited any specific evidence of national security threats posed by the drones. And perhaps more relevant for the Americans the bill would impact, their focus so far has not been on how the bill would curtail American drone buyers, who range from hobbyists to public safety officials.
DJI has been successful largely because the company offers affordable drones that are easy to use for novices and reliably effective for more seasoned operators, making them a go-to choice for some law enforcement agencies in the U.S.
James Avtges, a PhD student in Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern University, likened the company’s drones to Apple products. He said they are easy to use, vertically integrated, and offer a tightly-contained ecosystem — which makes them less appealing to more advanced users, who prefer a higher degree of “tinkerability.”
As currently drafted, the “Countering CCP Drones” Act does nothing to address the market gap its enactment would fill, other than the possible (and indirect) help it might give U.S. drone makers by shutting out a foreign competitor.
“In the same way that if the iPhone were to be banned tomorrow, there’s no one phone manufacturer we’re all gonna go buy from, there’s no single drone company that can step in to replace DJI,” Avtges said.
DJI drones’ low technical barrier is one of the reasons they are widely used for public safety missions like search and rescue and wildfire tracking.
Sally French, founder of the website The Drone Girl, said a public official could be trained on how to operate a DJI drone in about twenty minutes, while other drones on the market would require a higher degree of technical expertise.
The bill’s sponsors are aware—and disapproving of—China-made drones’ popularity among lifesavers. According to “Drones for First Responders Act,” another bill sponsored by Representative Stefanik and announced in May, the U.S. “cannot rely on the People’s Republic of China to supply unmanned aircraft that are critical to first responder operations.”
Yet there are reasons it currently does.
Capo a dog of Swiss disaster dog association Redog sits next to a drone during a press presentation on combined search and rescue with drones and dogs outside Zurich on August 23, 2017. Redog, a Swiss rescue dog organization, has been working with drones for a year to facilitate search and rescue missions, reporting encouraging results. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)
Four years ago, the Department of Homeland Security conducted a system test assessing the use of drones for public safety and emergency response purposes. The corresponding report, released in October 2020, found Autel Robotics’ EVO model to be the strongest performer out of the four tested. It was the “lightest, fastest, and least expensive” — and it was the only model with a collision avoidance feature.
Autel Robotics, the company that makes what the DHS deemed the best-in-show drone, is also Chinese.
The same year, Bard College’s Center for the Study of the Drone found DJI had 90% market share among public safety agencies, trailed by Yuneec, which was founded in Hong Kong, and China’s Autel Robotics.
The study also noted that the majority of drones operated by public safety agencies are consumer models, which American drone companies like Skydio have largely shifted away from because they are less lucrative. French said she has witnessed “many instances of American drone makers struggling in the commercial and consumer drone market.”
She also said the sweeping nature of the House’s proposed bans are excessive from both a consumer choice and public safety perspective. “Maybe in the army application, a ban makes sense,” French said. But in other cases, like the National Park Rangers’ use of drones to track grizzly bears, the ambiguous national security concept carries less weight.
“Does it really matter if China has access to footage of American bears? Probably not,” French said.
For its part, DJI has maintained its Chinese ownership does not present inherent risks, nor does it mean Chinese government entities, let alone the company itself, has access to user data. In a direct response to the “Countering CCP Drones Act” on its website, DJI elaborated on its basic security features: “DJI drones do not collect flight logs, photos, or videos – by default. Operators have to opt-in to share this data with us.”
First responders, meanwhile, aren’t all quite convinced DJI drones pose a national security threat just because policymakers are invoking one.
Sergeant. Travis Cook of Hardin County, Kentucky, where DJI drones have been used to help save officers’ lives during a hostage situation and other emergencies, told Nikkei Asia in June he was not convinced by politicians’ national security rhetoric. “There's nothing the drone sees that you and I can't see with Google Earth," he said.
Policymakers may be able to sell voters (and each other) on the claim that there is an inherent national security threat to Chinese drone companies’ market presence in the U.S., even if it does flout the free market aspirations the GOP was traditionally known for. But drone users will be left with nearly no comparably priced options.
Stefanik’s choice to link the DJI bill to the TikTok ban exacerbates lawmakers’ apparent commitment to naming, shaming, and banning Chinese companies rather than delivering comprehensive protections for U.S. consumers of technology products.
According to French, there would be better ways to regulate the drone industry. Consumers would also certainly support government efforts to foster more competition, she said, as there is strong demand for alternatives to DJI.
“The problem is — lawmakers don’t know what the real problem is,” she said.
*Article from Forbes