Opinion: Pending drone ban is bad for Utah’s economy

Josh Jackson is like many Utah dads; he has a lot of kids, he does a lot outside and he has a lot of hobbies. But his favorite hobby also pays his bills. As a licensed drone-camera operator, he spends hours in our mighty mountains filming footage for his clients and using his trusty drone to capture their beauty. He saved up and made sure to do his research on the best drones out there, and settled on a DJI Mavic series.

On the heels of celebrating 100 years of our blossoming film industry here in Utah, a controversial ban on drones manufactured elsewhere is currently pending in Congress. While forcing America-made products to be used may sound like good policy — no matter how disingenuous the term usually is — the issues at stake for our local film industry are numerous. And people like Josh will personally take the hit.

Millions of dollars are pumped into our state’s urban and rural economies by the film industry each year. Drones now allow for more people to produce more cinematic-level quality content than any before, highlighting the limitless beauty of natural Utah for fun and commerce. Promoting the Utah Office of Tourism’s Forever Mighty campaign seems to be the reason drones were made to begin with.

However, all this could change if Congress passes HR 2864, the Countering CCP Drones Act , which passed the House of Representatives this month and is now under consideration in the Senate. If enacted, the controversial measure would ban the domestic purchase of drones produced by DJI, a privately owned company headquartered in China, under the premise that its drones pose a security threat.

This seems more an instance of American companies using the heavy-hand of government to squash a competitor they can’t beat in the free market. The market has fueled the technological wonders of the computer age. Consumer-rewarded innovation turned drones from little more than remote-controlled planes a few years ago to wonders of science fiction today. Targeting a specific company for a government ban — in the absence of substantive evidence of a foreign threat — will lead to reduced competition and worse alternatives.

In the short term, a ban on commercially used drones threatens not only big Hollywood productions, but local social media content creators, hobbyists and others who make their living off of their drone footage. Simply put, American-made drones haven’t kept up with those made outside of the country. Banning the use of specific drones puts a major burden on videographers that could have far-reaching effects.

Good policy in the last few years has led to an increase of jobs in the film and cultural sector by nearly 36% . If this bill passes, it will have an impact on our economy, and the quality of content produced in our state will decrease.

It’s easy to paint DJI’s products, and others made internationally, in a bad light. No one wants to put our national security at risk. But DJI’s products are designed with privacy by default. Flight logs, photos, videos and mobile data — across consumer and enterprise drones — are not synced with DJI unless the end user chooses to opt in. In addition, DJI’s products are designed with “local data mode,” which disables the connection between the flight app and the internet, and they regularly submit their products for independent audits .

Drone users can also disable the DJI flight app in favor of third-party apps developed by U.S. based companies if that makes them more comfortable. Some may even argue they’re safer to use than our cell phones. In fact, many of our first responders rely on these drones for a reason; they’re reliable, safe and easy to use.

The proposed restrictions in this bill amount to protectionism under the guise of national security, and massive government overreach for the purchasing decisions of millions of Americans. Congress should focus less on government overreach and dictating winners and losers in the free market, and more on issues that actually impact cybersecurity.

I’m hopeful that Sens. Lee and Romney will be mindful of the impact this kind of legislation will have on Utahns like Jackson and others and vote to avoid unnecessary bans on products we rely on.

Once, Jackson was faced with a tough need for a client and only got the footage because he could rely on his drone to get the shot. The results speak for themselves.

Jackson is concerned that this bill will impact the quality of his video footage and his living.

“I own a DJI drone because they’re the best on the market. We use several types of drones in the footage I produce, and frankly, we don’t care where they’re made,” he said. “We have to produce quality and high-end footage for our clients and in order to be competitive, we have to use drones made in Asia. This bill would make my current drone illegal for no reason, and really impact filmmaking here in Utah.”

With so many other pressing issues impacting our economy, we can be hopeful that Congress can refocus its efforts and stay in its lane. It is not logical to impose unfair and unnecessary bills that unintentionally destroy our film industry.

Britt Larsen is a former congressional and gubernatorial communications director who now owns her own consulting firm, Livlyhood, helping people and businesses craft and share effective messages to find more joy in their work.