![SkySafe CEO on Remote ID](https://dronelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/image-from-rawpixel-id-9658739-jpeg-300x200.jpg)
Original public domain image
By DRONELIFE Features Editor Jim Magill
The state of Connecticut has joined a growing list of U.S. states which might be considering laws that will severely restrict or ban the usage of foreign-made drones by state agencies.
Senate Bill 3, currently pending within the Connecticut state Legislature, would prohibit the acquisition by state agencies of drones manufactured by a “covered foreign entity,” specifically China and the Russian federation. The laws is essentially aimed toward drones made in China, chiefly those produced by DJI, the world’s leading drone manufacturer.
Although the drone restrictions are couched amongst other sections within the bill coping with issues comparable to broadband access, Section 4 — which deals with small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) — has created essentially the most concern, especially amongst first-responder groups who fear the laws could ground their existing drone programs.
The restrictions on foreign-made drones mirror those contained within the federal American Security Drone Act, which was signed into law last December as a part of the omnibus National Defense Authorization Act. Other states, including Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee have passed similar bans, specifically targeting Chinese-made drones.
SB 3 would prohibit the acquisition by any public entity within the state of “any small unmanned aircraft system assembled or manufactured by a covered foreign entity” As well as it might bar the usage of any state funds “to buy, operate or repair” those sUAS.
As well as, if the laws were to turn out to be law, it might require any public entity that currently operates a drone system covered by the ban to submit, no later than October 1 2024, a plan to discontinue use of that system and to implement that plan by October 1, 2025.
The bill comprises provisions to use for a waiver from the ban if the operator of the drone system can prove the necessity for retaining their foreign-made drones attributable to exigent circumstances, comparable to the necessity to counter one other unmanned aircraft system, or for conducting a criminal investigation.
Letter from lawmakers
In a recent letter to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, state Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, the bill’s sponsor, and cosponsor Senator Martin Looney outlined their reasoning behind the proposed laws, making it clear the bill was targeted at drone industry leader DJI.
The lawmakers cited the American Security Drone Act and other moves by the federal government aimed toward DJI and other makers of Chinese-produced drones.
“This past January, the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed that DJI the most important Chinese drone manufacturer is definitely a ‘Chinese-Military Company’ working with the People’s Liberation Army,” the senators wrote. The identical company was also accused by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2020 of supporting human rights abuses against the Uighur people of Xinjiang.”
The senators also alleged that DJI products presented an inherent security risk of accessing potentially sensitive data, and turning that data over to the Chinese government. “It’s the drone hardware itself that presents the safety risk as the safety software updates for Chinese-made drones are controlled by Chinese entities that may introduce unknown data collection and transmission capabilities without the user’s awareness.”
For its part, DJI has long maintained that it’s a personal company, indirectly under the control of the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party and that it just isn’t accountable for alleged human rights abuses which were committed using its drone products. The drone manufacturer also says that it doesn’t collect data from its users without their permission and that any data that’s collected is stored on servers inside america.
Public hearing
A public hearing held on February 29 drew about 80 written responses to the bill, with most of those expressing opposition to the proposed laws. Lots of the opponents represented public service agencies, comparable to police and fire departments, that feared the bill would cripple their successful drone programs.
“This bill will hinder public safety investigations, put officers, civilians and suspects in danger, slow response time for life-saving care and hinder the flexibility to locate fleeing suspects from scenes, ultimately greatly impacting our ability to do our jobs and keep our communities protected,” wrote Sergeant Kyle Jonson of town of Torrington Department of Public Services.
Christopher Vanghele, chief of police for the town of Plainville, said if the proposed laws becomes law, “It’ll place officers in unnecessary, life-imperiling danger.”
Several respondents testified that their respective agencies deployed Chinese-made drones because they were inexpensive and had greater functionality than their non-Chinese counterparts. “Our department uses Chinese-made drones or drones with parts made in China because they’re one of the best and widely available,” Vanghele wrote.
“Chinese-made drones far exceed the capabilities and technical specification of U.S.-built drones,” wrote Donald Janelle, deputy emergency manager for the town of Manchester and co-chair of the Connecticut Municipal UAV Task Force. “The U.S. drones which have similar capabilities cost as much as twice as that of the Chinese counterparts and don’t perform as well.”
The bill’s opponents also countered the argument that the laws was vital to stop data collected by Chinese-made drones from being sent to China and turned over to the Chinese Communist Party.
“Our drones are flown and updated with external monitors that are usually not connected to any computers.” Flight data collected is retained throughout the external monitor used for flying,” Janelle testified.
“We understand that this bill is meant to deal with cybersecurity concerns,” Vanghele wrote. “Our drones shouldn’t have cellphone capability and aside from useless data about its flight pattern that’s stored within the cloud and there isn’t a other viable information that will be extracted from our drone flights.”
Several respondents testified in favor of the bill. Michael Robbins, chief advocacy officer of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) suggested several modifications to the bill that will make it less onerous to the state’s public safety agencies that currently fly the soon-to-be-banned drones.
Robbins suggested that somewhat than calling for the shutdown of all covered drone operations by October 2025, the cutoff date needs to be prolonged to at the very least October 2027, giving the agencies more time to make the transition to non-banned drones. He also called for the creation of a grant program for police agencies and firefighters to supply funds for the alternative of drones.
“With a rise transition period and the passage of the associated grant program bill, Section 4 of SB 3 becomes a rational, tailored measure that protects national security and recognizes the needs of the general public safety community,” he wrote.
An anonymous respondent, identified only as “Pilot in Command,” testified that the usage of Chinese-made drone technology must have been banned within the U.S. five years ago. “Chinese drones utilize a proprietary algorithm for data collection that only the Chinese can decrypt,” she or he wrote. “Get up America!”
Read more: