[WendyTheWillow]

Horse shit. If you can’t show specific data traffic flowing from Mavic software back to China that could conceivably be drone footage, this claim is bogus and borderline libelous.

It would be trivial to prove this to be true, and there is zero of that proof. Hell, at this point it would be valuable to even see small phone homes by Mavic software from the last year, but I doubt you even have that.

There are plenty of other reasons not to buy this drone, so the lies are completely uncalled for.

[rmbyrro]

You are looking at a simplistic perspective.

Surveillance doesn't always run 24/7 for every device. The signal/noise ratio would be extremely low.

To keep a high ratio, it's selectively switched on for high interest targets.

There's no reason for a drone flying on my backyard to send any data to China. Their privacy protection is inexistent. You can ask it to be conceivably whatever horse shit you like, I don't care. I don't want any bytes sent there.

[WendyTheWillow]

Nothing simplistic about asking for evidence that this is occurring. Yes it’s not easy, but without evidence you’re spewing speculation, and when you claim speculation as certainty it ventures into the realm of bull shit.

[rmbyrro]

There's plenty of evidence that the CCP forces Chinese tech businesses to do surveillance:

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=ccp+chinese+tech+surveillanc...

The word you're trying to find is not "speculation", but "suspicion":

1. a feeling or thought that something is possible, likely, or true.

2. cautious distrust.

You may like China or think there's no difference between the US and China. But saying there's no reason to be suspicious of a Chinese device is putting you in the realm of unreasonable...

[WendyTheWillow]

That’s too broad. The claim is specific, so the evidence needs to be specific.

I never claimed I “liked” China or equated China to the US at all, nor did I say suspicion of Chinese made electronics was without merit. What I said was the specific claim being made was unsupported by evidence that would be trivially collectable if the claim were true.

And no, my word choice was intentional. You seem to be arguing against the common criticisms of your position, but you are ignoring my actual issues. I recommend rereading what I wrote and trying again.