A junior product manager at DJI could have spotted this as a risk on day two. This is a predictable problem that is completely solvable, if only the company had an interest in doing so. There are a lot of people who have done a lot less who are currently sitting in prison.
They definitely do care - DJI devices block you flying in any kind of prohibited airspace out of the box and it's very difficult to override. In many countries, there's prohibited airspace over prisons for this reason.
> if only the company had an interest in doing so.
The criminals who do the deliveries also "have an interest" in stopping it (threat of prosecution). This is a complete rehash of the gun control argument: Whether you believe people who commit crimes are responsible for their actions or if the blame should be shifted to corporations or the ever-overused scapegoat "society".
What's sad is that ultimately the prisoners are going to suffer with less yard time. In my state, they had a couple fentanyl laced letters, so they blocked all prisoners from receiving letters (they get a photocopy). I believe that applied to pictures too. They got rid of all in person visits and replaced them with video calls, either blaming covid or staff shortages.
There's basically no way to prevent drone drops without building a canopy.
because the technology exists for DJI's drones to not work near prisons, which means there's a lawsuit waiting to happen, which means monetary fines for the company, which means the executives get paid less (sometimes) so they should theoretically care.
Are they legally required to prevent it though? Like I know people are prohibited from flying drones near airports but don't know if the manufacturer is required to prevent it too and whether the manufacturer is required to prevent it near prisons too?
