Hacker News

Ambiguous laws (which in this case are by definition impossible to comply with) which are capriciously enforced are a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. Sadly ironic, the US government used to highlight this fact:

"Authoritarian regimes’ unclear laws make anyone a suspect" - https://ge.usembassy.gov/authoritarian-regimes-unclear-laws-...

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

Heck if they do tell you, ICE swaps plates and tries to hide in various ways.

The evidence could be just some regular looking vehicle you can't find anything about and it's just "trust me bro those were feds" and you're out of luck.

Before you know it, they'll be detaining people without legal representation, shipping them to overseas black sites, and murdering citizens in the street. Oh, wait that's been the entirety of this treasonous administration.

Up next, secret interpretations of laws to do things with zero accountability or public overaight. Oh wait we already have that.

Congratulations you found the key to fascism: Create vague laws that could apply to anyone, then you can pick the people who broke it. Of course you try to only pick your enemies.

Only: the person in charge of that decision is the meanest, most stupid idiot you have ever met and they envy you for your wife and want to live in your house once you have been dispossessed.

The brother of my grandfather was in jail in Germany during WWII because he offended the original Nazis. He said what roughly translates to: "Nazis are all just dumb plebs." And the thing is, he was right.

The problem (which I've had happen) is that a no-fly zone suddenly popping up might prevent your drone from coming back to you.

Not that a government that just pops up no-fly zones would care about your drone, but just saying.

Whoever it was knew exactly what they were doing, and it was intentional.

This is exactly how corrupt, authoritarian governments have always operated.

Do no-fly zones extend indefinitely upwards? If so, can you build a no-fly wall out of cars?

Someone who doesn't get that we're supposed to have a representative government with enumerated powers in this country.

Or maybe they do get that, but find it incredibly inconvenient to their own aspirations.

Not really. The FAA revised the rule, but that was their choice, not the result of a ruling or even the reasoned application of a general principle.

The very broad power of administrative rulemaking held by that agency is unchanged -- and the power of agencies generally, to make law without legislating, without accountability to the electorate, actually has nothing to do with this administration, does it? It actually has nothing to do with any of them. It's something the legislature has allowed to grow and grow over successive administrations, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Now they are allowed to shoot them down at will.

Drones are already regulated. You aren't allowed to fly higher than 400' AGL without ATC authorization, an altitude chosen because it has special significance in the National Airspace System. Nor are you allowed to fly in the vicinity of an airport without authorization.

This particular restriction we're talking about was completely unjustifiable. But the regs exist, and they aren't just made up nonsense. They're the result of systems engineering and a real risk management process.

ICE is not driving airliners on the streets

Why wouldn't you? There are moving vehicles everywhere. If a drone who's weight is measured in grams is a problem being near moving vehicles, what do you think about 200 pounds of person and bicycle riding around moving vehicles?

6/10ths of a mile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

[flagged]

What are you talking about. Read part 107. Flying a drone is almost as hard as flying legally a private plane. Fines are huge. They are enforced.

"Muh safe space! My privilege! My entitlement! Won't anyone think of me?! The victim here is me!"

Do you feel hurt when reality exposes the nonsense of your almighty dictator?

This is not your feed.

I appreciate the fact that HN does not have personalized echo chamber aka feeds.

Government overreach is a concern for a lot of HNers; hence this was voted up.

To answer your edit, I'd say your framing of those questions is likely considered antagonistic.

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

Journalists documenting the behavior of law enforcement. One needn't report live streaming information for use of a drone to be valuable in a civil society. Law enforcement officers are granted power to perform their jobs, but that power should remain in check lest it be used to deny citizens their rights.

Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory?

This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.

Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?

This is not a valid comparison.

Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?

What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations?

Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective?

Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions.

re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens?

Most of them probably are citizens.

Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle?

The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.

Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country?

People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?

You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".

This is pretty ironic given that the government can and absolutely does track American citizens everywhere without a warrant. I've known people who were harassed by police because they were near a crime that happened and the police used it's surveillance tools to find likely people in the area.

I can take the last ine:

If a stranger told you your baby was ugly, you would think the stranger was an asshole even if everyone in your family agreed that the baby is hideous.

Enjoy living in your country.

In no way is that the most important point of the article, especially when you are cherrypicking that sentence and deleting part of it and still don't include how the updated guideline is still ambiguous. You are the "shit writer" here and commenter.

"On April 15, the FAA removed the no-fly zones by replacing the sweeping flight restrictions with a “national security advisory” titled NOTAM FDC 6/2824. The revised notice dropped all mentions of flight restrictions and criminal charges. It instead “advised” drone pilots to avoid flying near “covered mobile assets” belonging to the Department of Homeland Security and several other federal agencies."

"The new FAA advisory wording is “a lot better than it was,” but it still comes off as “too ambiguous,” according to Moss at the Drone Service Providers Alliance. He suggested that the Department of Homeland Security could handle any potential drone concerns rather than making it an FAA issue."