When it comes to China, the U.S. likes to pretend its business policies are well-crafted, logic-driven decisions based on the welfare of the markets and the public, but very often that’s simply not the case. We’ve already noted how the TikTok ban is an unconstitutional mess that doesn’t have the public’s support, in large part because it doesn’t actually fix any of the problems supporters of a ban like to claim.
Similarly our ban of Huawei, based on the unproven premise that the company was using network gear to spy on Americans en masse, has also been a hot mess. The government demanded U.S. telecoms engage in the costly act of ripping out all Huawei gear then replacing it with more expensive hardware, but failed to follow up on the demand or ensure the effort was adequately funded. Then they just forgot about it.
Now the House of Representatives is back again “fixing stuff,” with a new narrowly passed bill that would ban Chinese dronemaker from doing business in the U.S. The “Countering CCP Drones Act,” rolled into a broader military funding bill, put DJI on an FCC “covered list” created by the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, effectively barring DJI from functioning in the U.S.
Republican bill sponsors Mike Gallagher and Elise Stefanik say the ban is necessary because China has somehow using the dronemaker to spy on Americans:
“DJI drones pose the national security threat of TikTok, but with wings. The possibility that DJI drones could be equipped to send live imagery of military installations, critical infrastructure, and the personal lives of American citizens to China poses too great a threat.”
As with past mass hyperventilation efforts of this type, there’s no actual evidence that’s true. But the fact there’s no evidence supporting any of these claims is barely mentioned in press coverage (try to find where the New York Times clearly informs readers of the total lack of evidence in this lengthy expose).
As Jason Koebler at 404 Media notes in a must-read piece, not only is there no evidence of DJI wrongdoing, the company is senselessly being punished for adhering to past drone regulations designed by the U.S. government:
“Essentially, the US government pressured drone manufacturers to implement privacy and safety features that required internet infrastructure to operate, DJI built those features, and now lawmakers say those same features could be used by China to spy on Americans and are the reason for the ban. Meanwhile, the only existing American drone manufacturers create far more invasive products that are sold exclusively to law enforcement and government entities, which are increasingly using them to conduct surveillance on American citizens and communities.”
As with TikTok, if Congress was genuinely worried about consumer privacy, they’d regulate data brokers and pass a meaningful internet-era privacy law (data brokers sell vast, detailed demographic, behavior, and location data to anybody with two nickels to rub together, including foreign intelligence). If they were concerned about meaningful Chinese influence on government, they’d battle corruption.
Almost every time you dig beneath the hyperventilation over Chinese tech you’ll find some U.S. company that is whispering bullshit in the ears of Congress. Facebook spent years seeding worries about TikTok across Congress. Cisco did the same thing to Huawei. It’s trivial to get already xenophobic, paranoid, and trigger-happy policymakers all hot and bothered on the subject of China:
“What happens is you get competitors who are able to gin up lawmakers who are already wound up about China,” said one Hill staffer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. “What they do is pull the string and see where the top spins.”
DJI enjoys a massive (90%ish) market share on the U.S. drone market, and despite years of trying, most U.S. drone making companies have failed to compete on both quality and price. Since they can’t compete, competitors like SkyDio (themselves ironically tethered to U.S. first responder surveillance) want the competitor removed. It’s often genuinely that simple. Privacy or public welfare doesn’t enter into it.
This is all once again a byproduct of corruption, not malicious Chinese influence (not to suggest the Chinese government doesn’t routinely spy or can’t be malicious). But most of our tech policy “solutions” for China aren’t actual solutions; they’re hyperbolic freak outs carefully cultivated by companies that don’t want to compete with less expensive Chinese hardware.
It would be one thing if we implemented bans based on solid evidence and careful consideration, crafted to have a meaningful, lasting impact. But that’s rarely what happens. Instead we usually get a massive wave of hyperbole parroted by a broken press, a sloppy and rushed solution, and absolutely zero follow up.
