|
There are a lot of comments here about how useless these protections are, because A or B already exist, or C works better for stalking. I think most of those comments are missing the real point here. If an Apple product were ever used to stalk - or God forbid, harm - an individual, it would be a big national story. If a Tile or a Samsung tag (or an amazon gps tracker made for stalking) were used in the same way, it would likely only be mentioned in passing if the story were reported at all. That's why it's so important for Apple to do this. Additional benefit - this may push other vendors to do similar things, pushing stalkers back to more tailored devices. That's still helpful, as it's a lot easier to show intent if someone uses a device like that (as opposed to 'whoops, I lost my airtag). |
I spoke with Frank Wang on a few meetups in Shenzhen many years ago, back when DJI was still kind of a garage company.
Frank had big, nebulous ideas how he will be "engaging the civil society," "stakeholder negotiations," "industry wide self-governance body" blah blah blah to safeguard DJI from troubles.
I told him hiring lobbyists, and talking to officials, or even just making buzz about potential problems is a bad, bad idea.
Lawmakers can't ban things they don't know they can ban... unless you give them an idea.
Same thing with public reaction. People don't get outraged if they don't know why they should be.
In the end it came to that exact outcome, and drones are now in the process of being legislated to the ground, and effectively becoming unflyable by regular people without few kilograms of permits, and licenses.
He wanted to pride DJI on how government compliant, and safe his drones are, but instead just got them banned around every major city.