[leetcrew]

I strongly disagree.

as a matter of principle, I don't accept that a device I own should do anything more or less that what I tell it to do.

I don't expect HN to agree with me on this principle, so I will also present a practical argument. these kinds of controls that protect users from wrongdoing tend to be implemented incredibly crudely. my house is close enough to a major airport that it triggers DJI's flight restriction. if the drone happens to get a GPS fix inside my house it will deactivate itself and land. there's no way a small drone can be a threat to the public when it's hovering inside my living room, and I'm pretty sure the legal restrictions don't apply inside of a structure anyway.

[205guy]

This is a fascinating discussion that I think gets to the heart of the matter, but is still missing the key point: can you ever own something with software?

I up voted the sibling comment (diminoten) even though it was a bit aggressive. Leetcrew say s/he doesn't trust the controls programmed "crudely" by others. But the sibling logically points out that leetcrew's actions could be just as crude from the others' point of view.

I think leetcrew's principles are misdirected here. With software, you can't really own the device. Look at the librem5 debacle: you can't control the radios because the FCC doesn't license unlocked radios. If you had a ham license you could buy and operate any radio the way you want (within the rules). What's really missing is disclosure. DJI should be clearly documenting their software controls and all geographic restrictions so you know exactly what capabilities you are paying for.

[leetcrew]

I'm glad you brought up ham radio licenses. drones can certainly be dangerous if they are misused. although it would be inconvenient for me, I would not oppose stricter licensing requirements for drones and other potentially dangerous products. it could even be required to buy one in the first place. requiring a license says something like "we need to know that you understand the rules and are capable of following them". software controls imply "we don't trust you to follow the rules, even if you understand them". I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I think the second message is just inappropriate for a citizen in a free society.

[205guy]

But the free market is working: there are permitless drones available (with idiot-proofing software), or you can buy or build a "DRM-free" drone, and now the gov't essentially says you need a permit/license to fly it. I've seen youtube channels of the commercial drone pilots (ads/TV/cinema) who had to spend $10K+ to get a pilot's license.

There is still a middle ground of "unlocked" drones that you only need to register with FAA to use, but you still need to follow the rules yourself. But it is in the drone manufacturers interest to self-regulate to avoid being banned altogether. If too many yahoos and others (see Gatwick incidents) cause problems, authorities can easily kill their profitable industry. So I think these "personal-responsibility" drones will quickly be phased out by the industry.

[diminoten]

I, as a member of the public, am glad you don't get to decide, with your own judgement, what is and isn't safe to do around an airport in this specific case. Honestly, I wish more laws could be enforced this way.

Your judgement, in aggregate, can safely be assumed to suck, by me, someone who doesn't know you. It may not actually suck, but in situations where you can clearly and obviously harm me (hitting a plane with your drone), I don't want you to have any choices in the matter. Sorry, but others have ruined the fun for both of us.