Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- transportation:drones [2026/02/24 22:17] – [Lawsuit] timb
+++ transportation:drones [2026/06/18 23:08] (current) – [Ban] timb
@@ Line 853: / Line 853: @@
 https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/23/trump-administrations-ban-on-foreign-made-drones-starts-this-week-you-can-say-goodbye-to-new-dji-models/
+== You Can No Longer Fly Or Purchase a Drone In Beijing ==
+Posted by BeauHD on Thursday June 18, 2026 08:00AM
+Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from PetaPixel:
+<blockquote>
+China dominates the consumer drone market, so it is perhaps surprising that it is no longer possible to fly or even purchase a drone in Beijing. The new law that passed last month makes it illegal to buy, rent, or fly a drone without prior approval from the authorities. Users must also complete an online training session and pass a test on drone regulations. Under the new rules, drone users are also not allowed to repair or replace their drones in Beijing. Not only that, but a drone in a repair shop must be picked up in-person, rather than sent back by delivery.
+The BBC reports that drones must now be registered before being brought into and out of the Chinese capital. "I have to apply for permission for each flight, which is very inconvenient," drone enthusiast Steven Wang tells CNN. "And starting this year, the wait time is getting longer, and the reasons for rejection are becoming more vague." Despite China being the birthplace of the consumer drone industry, it is increasingly difficult for hobbyists to fly there. Beijing authorities say that the rules are made to "strengthen the management of unmanned aerial vehicles" and "safeguard the security of the capital."
+</blockquote>
+https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/06/18/0040249/you-can-no-longer-fly-or-purchase-a-drone-in-beijing
@@ Line 1708: / Line 1722: @@
 <blockquote>
-    Petitioners seek review of the Ruling on the ground that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it purported to add DJI’s products to the Covered List. Petitioners respectfully request his Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling and grant any other relief that the Court finds proper.
+Petitioners seek review of the Ruling on the ground that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it purported to add DJI’s products to the Covered List. Petitioners respectfully request his Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling and grant any other relief that the Court finds proper.
 </blockquote>