eevBLAB 132 - Insta360 Ace Pro 2 Camera RANSOMWARE

[golden_labels]

Now explain, why would a fake device force registration.

We went over that, it wouldn't, unless you try to use DJI app or software on it.

The Windows example is not giving any answer, because in that case it’s still Windows that is being distributed. It’s an unlicensed distribution, but it’s still the same “item.” In the same domain, a more accurate parallel would be arguing, that Windows requires creating an on-line account to prevent people from using ReactOS disguised as Windows.

The clone can be the same physical item produced on ghost shift, or contain the same processor running the same code, or be an entirely different product design, I'm not sure why it matters. Obviously the main reason they want a registration is probably sales tracking and marketing, but there are clearly other possible reasons (simplify warranty, counterfeiting, stolen property, recall notices, etc.).

So, we are moving somewhere! \ö/

I take the “(o)bviously the main reason they want a registration is probably sales tracking and marketing” part as a sign, that you no longer try to say their reply was logical or anything more than PR manipulation. Makes me feel I’m free from the obligation to respond to “why it matters” question.

The only thing remaining are these “other possible reasons.” None of which validates forcing anybody either to register or to run any app. Some are still to the benefit of the company, not the buyer. Like “simplifying” warranty. In scare quotes; if deployed this way, “simplifying” is a nicer sounding synonym for “constraining.” Proper customer-faced simplifying is when the buyer may choose the method simplest to them, not to the vendor. Some other examples may or may not be beneficial to the customer, but it’s up to the buyer to decide. Not to be forced upon anybody and then rationalized with the good, old “it’s for their own good.”

Using your own examples:

• Counterfeiting: if somebody is worried their device may be counterfeit, it’s their decision to check that. It also doesn’t require installing any apps or revealing any data. While not necessary or suitable for the entire population, the baseline procedure is sending 8 words to a plain web form on a hidden service, and receiving a “yes” or “no” answer. This has downsides and could be greatly improved, but I just want to show how far from that baseline DJI is.
  
  It’s also important to note, that in 21st century the problem should not be existent. The earliest known deciphered written record shows us that accounting is older than 5,200 years. The only reason the issue of fake goods exist is unwillingness of business to reveal their connections or take the additional burden.
• Stolen property: it’s up to the customer to enable that feature, if they wish it to be enabled. And the user doesn’t need to rely on the vendor for that either. That requirement is yet also the choice of the manufacturer to force people to subscribe.
• Recall notices: no law requires the manufacturer to reach out to each and every user of the product. In particular not against user’s will. And once again this is something that requires no registration or vendor’s app, and is something the user decides to do.
  
  In 2025 there is really no need to do per-vendor recalls too. There do exist national bodies, that coördinate such stuff.

[thm_w]

I take the “(o)bviously the main reason they want a registration is probably sales tracking and marketing” part as a sign, that you no longer try to say their reply was logical or anything more than PR manipulation. Makes me feel I’m free from the obligation to respond to “why it matters” question.

Just because you've demonstrated other anti-counterfeiting methods may exist that do not require registration does not instantly make their chosen method illogical and "PR manipulation". The CEO of DJI is an aerospace engineer, maybe he made the call, maybe marketing did, who knows.

I don't see the relevance either way, if you want it stopped its probably not going to be DJI themselves doing anything, it will be some level of consumer protection law.
DJI has around 80% of the US drone market, and about 35% for action cameras. They've had this activation present in their cameras for 5+ years, so its clearly not affecting their sales significantly.

[mikeselectricstuff]

PR bullshit that literally hurts my brain with being illogical.

There is a grain of truth to it. If you receive a clone DJI camera and try to register it with DJI, presumably, it would fail.

No, the clone would not need registration at all, making it a better product than the original

[mikeselectricstuff]

The problem is that  once people get used to  this  bullshit and can't see the problem, it's  slippery slope - instead of a 1-off registration, it needs renewing every year.
Maybe next year there's a charge to re-register, then they require a subscription to continue to use certain features....

[thm_w]

No, the clone would not need registration at all, making it a better product than the original

Yes we already discussed that. You can say pirated software is better as its easy to reinstall, pirated movies are better as they have no built in ads or copy protection, not really going to disagree there.

The problem is that  once people get used to  this  bullshit and can't see the problem, it's  slippery slope - instead of a 1-off registration, it needs renewing every year.
Maybe next year there's a charge to re-register, then they require a subscription to continue to use certain features....

Insta360 and DJI combined own most of the action camera market and they both have used registration for years, so people are already used to it.
Slippery slope is valid. In this country existing consumer protection laws theoretically protect against requiring extra payments to use the device, whether they've ever been enforced, no idea.

Looks like Sony has an option: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1469682-REG/sony_dsc_rx0ii_cyber_shot_dsc_rx0_ii_digital.html

[EEVblog]

Insta360 and DJI combined own most of the action camera market and they both have used registration for years, so people are already used to it.

Because nobody fights back against it.

Looks like Sony has an option: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1469682-REG/sony_dsc_rx0ii_cyber_shot_dsc_rx0_ii_digital.html

Used to have one, have done some videos with it over the years. It's not really a competitor, it has essentially no image stabilisation built in.

[golden_labels]

Just because you've demonstrated other anti-counterfeiting methods may exist that do not require registration does not instantly make their chosen method illogical and "PR manipulation". (…)

Ok, this is going nowhere.

Please state your position, clearly.

Because I have a growing feeling, there is no position at all. At first I thought it’s goalpost shifting. But now it looks like replying in a contrarian manner to whatever has been said in the last posts (only), without having any specific statement in mind.

[wilfred]

The problem is that  once people get used to  this  bullshit and can't see the problem, it's  slippery slope - instead of a 1-off registration, it needs renewing every year.
Maybe next year there's a charge to re-register, then they require a subscription to continue to use certain features....

If people get used to it and don't see it as a problem, then from the companies POV it isn't a problem and from the customers POV it also isn't a problem. So maybe there isn't a problem on a scale that will drive any change. Most people just want the pictures. 

The only real problem is for those who can't find an alternative. Maybe someone will see a market for those growing numbers of malcontents. If the numbers do grow enough.

[golden_labels]

Wilfred, it’s always the minority.

Freedom of speech is not needed by the majority. Even if the majority had anything to say, only a very tiny portion will ever see any inconvenience for doing so.

The right to fair trial is not needed by the majority. Most people will never face a trial. The rare exceptions are in most cases still protected by social codes, structures, and centuries-old legal practices.

Freedom of association is not needed by the majority. The majority doesn’t associate. Associations are formed by those, who wish to work for a common goal, often to achieve some change. And these are minorities.

Fighting corruption and bribes is not a problem for the majority. High-position bribes are only a matter to a very small minority, whereas bribes at lower level turn a social norm and form a part of economy.

Individual voting is not needed by the majority. The result can be estimated from a much smaller sample with a good enough accuracy. We suffer the cost, because this way minority positions can also be counted.

Consumer protection laws are not needed by the majority. If such laws need to be enacted, it means the majority has already agreed to the abuse and considers it so normal, the victims minority lost any other means of defense.

I come from Poland, which — if recognized historically — is mentioned worldwide either in the context of WW2 or the fall of communism. Oh, great protests against communism and support for democracy and freedom! Unfortunately, people who truly protested in the name of higher values, were a small minority of thinkers and perhaps some urban youngsters. Oversimplifying a bit,⁽¹⁾ the majority went to the streets because of constant shortages of meat and toilet paper.

It doesn’t matter, what the majority does or thinks. There are many positive reasons for that, rooted in human behavior, beyond the simple negative rooted in reasoning.

And yes, this raises a somewhat frightening thought: that any big change is brought by a bunch of jerks, who disregard or even abuse the majority to meet their own needs and follow their own beliefs.

⁽¹⁾ The oversimplification comes from skipping the complex nature of the movement. The reality involves ideological climate of the times, a mixture of different sentiments, Polish history, and the current perception built upon later rationalization and re-interpretation of the events. The key point is accurate in the context of this particular post. Most of these people quickly became unhappy when the freedom actually came, dumping the ideological part, and that still shapes politics of Poland in 2025.

[Brumby]

There are several issues that are relevant that include matters of privacy and changing the deal after purchase, for example.  Then there's the fundamental principle of basic functionality versus the need for internet connectivity.  Subscription models are becoming more and more prevalent, which is a problem for me when there is no material benefit for doing so.

And so the list goes on.

What we are really facing is the slow and steady infiltration of these tactics such that the changes are incremental, almost unnoticeable but continue towards a degree of control that is absurd, unreasonable and unnecessary.  It's like sitting in the cannibal's pot, enjoying the water while the temperature climbs ever so slowly until we finally realise - too late - that we are cooked.

The signs of this are already visible, but it is only a small few that are trying to raise the alarm.  The majority are simply taking the easy road of being oblivious and just enjoying the warm and fuzzy feeling, not realising how much warmer and less fuzzy things are getting.

One day, people will wake up to a whole new world and will only realise how far things have deteriorated when they look back to "the good old days" when you bought an item and it was yours to do with as you pleased - including repair and/or modification - and continued to function without further cost or restriction.  Some people may be OK with this.  I, and others, am not.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

The time is now.

[golden_labels]

Let me share a recent story. Not as an argument, as I despise using individual accounts to convince people. Rather as a case study and an example, that it’s not a hypothetical problem invented by ideologized extremists like myself.

My mother uses a smartophone, installs apps when promised financial benefits, clicks “I accept” without thinking twice, uses no adblockers, gets caught in any marketing trap out there, collects points on member cards etc. She has no opinion on any topics related to this thread. So I assume it’s neutral enough. Recently she almost lost her job, because of such creeping changes. The “oh, but it works for the majority” kind.

She’s a nurse. As a part of requirements in a new workplace, she had to renew her blood transfusion certification. That includes participating in a course and passing an exam. She did that tens of times, nothing unusual. There are like 3 companies in the country, that are permitted to give that certification. She bought the course in the closest one. First surprise: after buying the course, she learned that it’s on-line only. She can’t do it in-person. Ok, that did happen in the past. A few days before the lecture and exam she receives an email, in which she’s told everything is going to be done over Microsoft Teams. She never used it, asked me for help. Fine, I came, open the link at her laptop. Boop! “Sorry, we don’t support your platform.” I tried updating Firefox to the most recent version:⁽¹⁾ the error is the same. The email says, that in case of trouble you should call company’s support. It’s after the noon, they no longer work at this hour, she is to call the next day. Asking either how to run it or, perhaps, if she can simply come to their place and use their computers. The next day I answer a phone from her: the lady at the support said it’s not their problem and — literally — she doesn’t care, what happens to my mother’s job. Ok, I met with her again. I try using Chrome on her smartphone: nope. I’m trying to install Teams, hoping that perhaps from inside there I would be able to do anything. Of course she has to waive all her rights in the process, but she did. Microsoft also refuses to accept her two existing email addresses and requires creating a Microsoft one. Fine… except… no, because Microsoft’s webapp at the end of the process shows “sorry, website is currently unavailable.” She calls her boss, the boss agrees to offer hospital’s gear. Next day she comes shaken to the workplace and guess what. Teams not working at hospital’s laptop. IT guys are helpless too, despite honest efforts. Finally, in the last moment, they managed to connect using boss’ smartphone.

To me this single example embodies everything that is going wrong right now, in just one event. Including that the victims are always the invisible, silent minority which just happens to be unlucky.

⁽¹⁾ I’ll leave it out, why it’s not updated. Don’t dig into it.

[Brumby]

It's like sitting in the cannibal's pot, enjoying the water while the temperature climbs ever so slowly ....

Insta360 and DJI combined own most of the action camera market and they both have used registration for years, so people are already used to it.

.... until we finally realise - too late - that we are cooked.

Now, you may say that not every manufacturer/supplier will take their customers down the path of subterfuge, because they are "a nice company" - but that will, I foresee, change once the barriers are manageable and the motivation is found. 

To put it simply, once such a company realises they are disadvantaged by not adopting such measures - they will introduce them, especially when their competitors have already lowered the expectations of the market and made it numb because that's now the norm.  (As demonstrated in the above quotes.)

[golden_labels]

For these, who wish to use Clippy, a reminder. Likely it’s not going to affect the non-commercial use to express your private opinion, but be careful where you put the Clippy. It may become a different story, if you put it on your product, official commercial site, or a company car.

A paperclip image is an image mark owned by Microsoft for a wide range of uses, in US registered under number 90782739.<sup>(1)

(1)</sup> You can check in USPTO webapp; I can’t link, as the application prevents direct linking. Here’s a copy at Justia.com, though it seems to be outdated.

[John B]

I look at things from a principle of least privileged access. Much in the same way that it is applied to software architecture, so can it also be applied to your purchasing decisions, not to mention your very right to privacy.

[Dr Bob]

But I was shocked to find there was no way to even set the time without downloading an app and connecting it to a smartphone.

For a smartwatch, there needs to be some connecting up to one's smart phone and an app on the phone that lets the watch interoperate with the phone.

A camera, OTOH, is a stand alone device or at least can be if you don't want to pair it with your phone/tablet.

I'm in the market for some sort of 4k or better handheld camera to grab video snippets when loading up my real camera onto the gimbal is more hassle than it's worth. Now I'm going to make sure that there's no registration requirement before buying one. I can use the fake gmail account I had to make for something else that lives on a phone that doesn't have a SIM. The only thing that gmail account is for is to access the play store. It's not used for anything else and doesn't get accessed from any other device.

[Dr Bob]

Counterfeit products are an issue, but this isn't the way to go about combating them. If somebody buys a fake model and it's shit, they'll likely find out the deal they got was "too good to be true" and maybe next time will buy from a better vendor (not Amazon, home of counterfeit products galore).

[RJSV]

   Ok what's 'Least Privilege Access' ?    Probably code, for:
   'Those who didn't PAY and register / sign-in'.

    Some,  players in the Government cash grant game, wish to claim (their work) is all private, all privately generated IP (intellectual property) and while I'd agree that some of the legalize talk is solid,  that's such a greedy and anal retentive position to take:
   'Adversarial with your customers, from the get-go.

   Getting government grants,  (like the free cellphone giveaway program) makes myself at least a partial participant,  as my taxpayer cash goes to the likes of these arrogant / entitled corporations.
Sure they've hired the best legal fence builders,  but I question the basis.
   Somehow,  this resembles local restrictions,  on blocking access to beaches, through private lands.   The intent there, was to preserve public access,  regardless of the status of the landowner where the road or trail goes through.
   That example is balancing private ownership rights, with reasonable public access down to a beach.   Course now, here,  someone may wish to start argument about how cut and dried the issue is.  Quoting some legal jargon,  perfectly yet ignoring that many laws DO extent into issues of intent,  and, with effort, can have the exceptions in place.
   What a gross thing to have to argue against...disgusting!

Rick

[golden_labels]

For a smartwatch, there needs to be some connecting up to one's smart phone and an app on the phone that lets the watch interoperate with the phone.

Not at all. On two counts.

First, smartwatches have an interface. Time may be set there. Preventing this is a hostile design choice. Unless you want to download data from the smartwatch or render something beyond capabilities of the simple display, there is no reason to require connectivity.

Second, connectivity doesn’t entail a requirement for a vendor-enforced app. And this is the assumption your statement makes. Bluetooth is a mess⁽¹⁾, and indeed it’s often burdersome to develop anything for it without custom solutions. But Bluetooth still offers many standard profiles. They are sufficient for most of smartwatch features.

Note in both cases I used and underlined word “require.” There is a difference between verbs “to offer” and “to require.” A vendor is free to offer an app. In fact I argue a vendor should offer an app!⁽²⁾ But not require the app.

⁽¹⁾ When compared to e.g. USB, or to many other communication protocols.
⁽²⁾ Majority of people can’t be expected to get around without it.

[RJSV]

   I'd like to repeat my situation,  why I agree with Dave's term 'Ransomware' not to rant, excessively, but just a courtesy for newcomers to this topic:
   The word term 'higher privilege' has been employed recently, which likely means that (I) haven't paid or earned some right, above normal folks.  Even by just registering as a Google member,  (for free),  I supposedly have some elevated 'privilege' over normal non-members.
  Maybe I, uhh,  don't like the political engagements that Google has, or the sick slant on daily news (my perception).
Reinforced by observation.   YouTube, owned by Google, has the historic MUSIC segments and artists that I love to study.  (Even the romantic stuff, like Herb Alpert's ballads!)

   My take, being poor also,  is that my taxes went to places like Google, over the last half-decade,  and some access to music videos can't be that bad.   They are supposed to reciprocate, to some fair degree,  maybe not heavily, but some limited access to play older movies, and music is fair trade.  Did I mention they get money, out of my own taxes ?

   I might play a 'reaction review' video, 3 times in a row,  say, on a Jimi Hendrix's 'Hey Joe',  take a few notes,  and get inspired to study some more works.  These musicians are very creative individuals, which is just what a struggling inventor appreciates!  Life stories and all

   So, no, I don't want to do any on-line banking, to pay subscriptions, as I don't have resources if there needs to be theft recovery, etc. Id pay cash, or check, if...
   Just want to get in, watch the video.  But especially when I observe the big fat monopoly operating, and partially in the political activist spheres, I don't like the forced sign-ups (i.e. ransom).
   Today I notice, on a Google search,  NO other search results, but YouTube.  Used to be that, (even a week ago),  a REDDIT or another site would come up, once or twice in a run of YouTube results.   That's just plain observation, not somebody else's rant, telling me to hate Google, I'm observing monopoly structure, acts, and results.
   So I started realizing how powerful that is,  to own the search engine and the product (YouTube) being 'found' in the search.   You could do some subtle manipulation,  besides just simple listing all YouTube, and nothing else.
   Used to be (couple weeks ago) a person could see other entities, although way way down in a search results list.

   Sooo,  now I get excluded from things like a piano lessons guy, or...a music reviewer lady (Charismatic Voice).  I'd like to hear her reviews and opinions...Higher privileged, or not.
   Soon, I fear,  some social agency or official health care agency is going to use Google / YouTube as part of the patient access, to health care features....(If not already).

   Mainly,  I just love to study the great music performers,  subscription free, and low privilege labels notwithstanding!!