Hairdryer: Missouri legislators get heavy first responder blowback on DJI drone ban bill

Lawmakers in Missouri have joined peers on a lengthening list of states looking to ban DJI drone use by public agencies. But they’re already getting emphatic opposition from the first responders who rely on the craft for their work.

According to various local media reports, a bill introduced by state legislators to prohibit the purchase and use of DJI drones by public agencies received strong blockback from members of police, fire, ambulance, and other first responder forces that turned up for an initial hearing Wednesday. Held by the Missouri House Committee on Homeland Security, yesterday’s meeting explained the initiative, and invited response to it. That might have been a mistake.

According to footage shot by TV station WGEN, when the room “packed” with law enforcement and first responder officials was asked for an informal show of hands on the proposal, only one person in attendance voted in favor of the ban. It’s now uncertain whether the bill will make it out of committee, much less be considered by the full House.

The Republican sponsor of Missouri’s text, Representative Dan Stacey, cited federal blacklists of DJI as justification for the effort—tantamount to arguing a defendant be convicted based solely on unproven allegations made by a third party. He also inaccurately described the federal bans as establishing “DJI as a Chinese military company operating within our borders.” 

Stacey also mentioned thus far unsubstantiated claims that the craft leak user data to government servers in China. Opponents of the measure pointed out operators can prevent DJI drones from communicating collected information while in flight or on the ground.

Instead, argued John Yeast – a pilot and trainer of SWAT, search-and-rescue, police, and other first responder forces with over 7,000 flight hours to his record – the push by Missouri officials is another bid by politicians to exploit the current anti-China atmosphere as a cover for protectionist initiatives seeking to assist domestic manufacturers.

“This bill’s sole purpose and intent is to limit market competition by forcing agencies to purchase less capable and tremendously more expensive products,” Yeast stated. “The drones we’d be forced to use under this bill have inadequate capabilities compared to those of our current drones – yet they cost 10 times more.”

That ten-fold surcharge may be true for rare, high-powered drone available, but is certainly an exaggeration of what most US-made alternatives would cost. Nevertheless, a television report from neighboring Kansas – which is pressing to pass a similar ban – included comments from Wichita Police Lt. Dereck Purcell estimating domestic options available under DJI prohibition would be “maybe not twice as expensive, but are considerably more expensive.”

Opponents also noted a lot of data on ordinary and critical infrastructure drones capture while in flight can already be obtained by satellites China and other countries operate. That – combined with user capabilities to stop DJI craft from wirelessly communicating collected information – makes blacklisting both wildly excessive, expensive, and damaging, said Yeast. 

“If the state of Missouri’s legislative body were to pass this bill, nearly 90% of all public safety drone teams would be required to no longer exist or operate as they do today,” he argued.

Image: Briana Tozour/Unsplash