The author was clearly discussing the recent events regarding the drone that went over the White House. For normal buyers of drones, and for drone companies, su

The author was clearly discussing the recent events regarding the drone that went over the White House. For normal buyers of drones, and for drone companies, such "blacklists" make sense because it protects the drone operator. Right now if you fly your drone over the White House, an airport, and so on, you -- the operator -- are taking significant legal risks. DJI and other companies know that their average user doesn't want that, hence the "blacklist". But it (flying in restricted areas) remains against the law, and a serious risk, whether your drone complies with it or not. The author of the piece seemed to talk about that from a "normal device" perspective. But of course everyone knows that such a list would do nothing against a real criminal who would override such functionality. It isn't really clever for anyone to point that out, and it's reacting in advance to a non-law or regulation, but hysterically responding to a company trying to ensure that their customers don't accidentally get in trouble with the law.