Flying a drone within 1/2 mile of ICE vehicles, which may be unmarked, is illegal? You can be flying a drone and if an unmarked ICE vehicle drives close enough, without warning, you have now broken serious FAA laws? This isn’t the kind of restriction that gets passed when the people making the rules care about being fair or consistent. It’s a power grab.
youknownothing 47 minutes ago [-]
IANAL but mens rea is a serious consideration here. A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted, so unmarked cars are in practice out of scope.
I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.
smallmancontrov 43 minutes ago [-]
No, the point isn't just to stop legal action against ICE, it's also to go after anyone who posts drone footage that goes viral.
Party of free speech, btw.
youknownothing 40 minutes ago [-]
yeah, that too, good point.
jddecker 2 hours ago [-]
How does this work if they are not clearly defined on a map? Usually TFRs are shown on drone maps so you know where you can fly.
If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?
evil-olive 57 minutes ago [-]
yep. the disconnect you're feeling comes from thinking you're living within the normative state, when in fact you're under the prerogative state:
> The dual state is a model in which the functioning of a state is divided into a normative state, which operates according to set rules and regulations, and a prerogative state, "which exercises unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees".
I can't wait to see this tested in court. While IANAL the EFF sure has lawyers and their argument seems petty sound.
Really this just seems like a waste of government money. They can shoot down drones and arrest people but those people will get court cases and they'll win and the gov will (and has) have you pay out fines. I'm not a fan of paying people to harass others...
Terr_ 19 minutes ago [-]
> I can't wait to see this tested in court.
Today, yes, but if the fascist cancer is around for too long, more and more judges will be its appointed tools.
Analemma_ 11 minutes ago [-]
I don’t think they really care about paying out fines, that would be a cost of doing business. The point is to make sure that footage like the Pretti execution can never happen again, because that’s what tanks their support. If they have to pay out a bunch of fines to get that assurance, so what? The fines are paid by our tax dollars anyway, it’s not like they’re actually harmed or deterred by them.
tremon 1 hours ago [-]
Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
> If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?
That depends on whether you support Dear Leader.
trhway 1 hours ago [-]
that is the point - to make you scared to fly your drone, anywhere, anytime. That is among the main differences between democratic society and the rest - a citizen of democratic society knows the extent of his rights, and where he would be crossing the line into violation of law, and that makes the citizen pretty assertive in his rights. That assertiveness isn't compatible with the non-democratic societies (or with authoritarian abuses of power in a [still overall] democratic society).
tomrod 2 hours ago [-]
I agree with the EFF here. Government operators must operate in the daylight.
Herring 44 minutes ago [-]
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
Support for such measures (welfare, healthcare, unionization, high taxes etc) is usually low among Americans.
We wouldn't need so much ICE involvement if we had been diligent about removing illegal aliens on an ongoing basis.
Terr_ 16 minutes ago [-]
I think a lot of the people behind the rise of fascism are ones who experience "status anxiety" as a constant baseline. Actual safety through a government of laws will never appease them.
tayo42 38 minutes ago [-]
Confusing, the right are the ones advocating for cutting these things?
greedo 28 minutes ago [-]
Yes? At least in the US, the GOP has been working relentlessly for most of my life to reduce welfare, to reduce Medicaid, to make unionization difficult and to neuter existing unions, and most of all, cut taxes on the rich.
Herring 23 minutes ago [-]
Ask a lot of software engineers what they think about European-style salaries and taxes to pay for a welfare state.
andrewjf 14 minutes ago [-]
I would be very happy to do so if we had working infrastructure, education, and health care not coupled to the generosity of your employer.
Isn’t it the case anyway that if you add state, federal, local, property, capital gains, and sales taxes, add the money that you and your employer pays for healthcare, that you’re basically paying slightly more in taxes all-in?
tomrod 7 minutes ago [-]
Huh. Most software engineers I come across am at worst ambivalent and at best highly desiring of unions.
georgemcbay 22 minutes ago [-]
> Confusing, the right are the ones advocating for cutting these things?
This is where the racism comes in. As long as you believe that the social safety net cuts are disproportionally hurting the "other" more than you, you have plenty of space for the cognitive dissonance required to support the cuts even when they are negatively impacting your own situation.
Combine this with the fact that the right has two tiers, one of them made up of wealthy asset owners who politically push for the changes (and benefit from them in the form of extremely low taxes) and the second made up of working class people who can be convinced the changes are good as long it allows them to think those they see as below them will suffer more than they will.
Get yourself a nice feedback loop going in the form of hurting the poor, convincing them the source of their oppression is the "other" to get them to support even more austerity, repeat and you can explain a lot about the politics of much of rural America.
jeffbee 41 minutes ago [-]
I thought it was to simply throw fascists into the sea.
Simple
Effective
Affordable
Ethical
gruez 29 minutes ago [-]
>Effective
The problem with political violence is that the other side will do the same thing, and you end up with an IRA situation where the country descends into sectarian violence.
dragonwriter 24 minutes ago [-]
The problem with refraining from political violence where it is warranted is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.
gruez 17 minutes ago [-]
>is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.
Preemptive first strike logic[1] aside. This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out. On the other hand by starting/advocating for political violence you're almost certainly going to get the descent into sectarian violence before you can wipe out all the "fascists".
[1] Iran, anyone?
ceejayoz 27 minutes ago [-]
The IRA situation had a slightly lower bodycount than the not-throwing-1930s-fascists-into-the-sea one, did it not?
gruez 16 minutes ago [-]
How many people died under the Bolsheviks, or the Communists in China?
tomrod 6 minutes ago [-]
More than one or two, if memory serves correct.
How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.
nine_k 30 minutes ago [-]
"Why won't all good people rally together and kill all bad people?"
vkou 2 hours ago [-]
How exactly is anyone supposed to comply with this, given that neither the FAA nor ICE are telling anyone where ICE vehicles and operations are.
(The answer is obvious - it's impossible to comply with it.)
jauntywundrkind 2 hours ago [-]
In general the Trump administration is the most emergency based folks on the planet. If it's not for emergency reasons, it's for national security reasons. None of it is explained or backed. They just take the hallpass and fuck off to do whatever the hell they like.
Brazen mis-governance. I think it's particularly insulting to call so many things emergencies, threats. This is the work of the rankest, lowest cowards, to sabotage our nation with such false lightly thrown around accusations, for such fake purposes. Exploitative creeps!
Edit: what timing! Oh look, new Constitutional crisis just dropped, with Trump again seizing the power of the purse from congress! He's declaring rule over OMB to fund DHS, because (you guessed it) National Emergency!! https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/libe...
52 minutes ago [-]
iwontberude 57 minutes ago [-]
Thanks for the links. Hopefully things get bad enough people actually take control of government again. I personally used to scoff at CalExit but now seeing how easy it is for a government to abuse you from a distance, I would much prefer Sacramento the ultimate seat of power for my community, family and interests.
Terr_ 12 minutes ago [-]
A marginally less-extreme option would be to start subdividing larger states.
The Constitution does not permit amendments to change the "equal" representation of states in the Senate, but we can even the playing field by making it easy for large states to subdivide for the benefit of the people.
yahway 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
nickphx 49 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
charcircuit 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 59 minutes ago [-]
> It should be possible to get rid of 99% all illegals in less than 2 years.
The Nazis couldn't even manage it with a smaller population in six years.
nandomrumber 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
badlucklottery 2 hours ago [-]
> You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.
"How do you tell the difference between a protestor with a camera and a protestor with a grenade?"
Do you see how the assumption of extreme (and very unlikely) danger is bad excuse for violating people's rights?
nixosbestos 53 minutes ago [-]
Look at the first sentence of their bio. It would be rude of me to offer my opinion on their mental state, is all I'm going to say.
loloquwowndueo 2 hours ago [-]
How do you tell a difference between a phone with a camera and a phone with a grenade.
Filming ICE is no longer allowed.
Terr_ 2 hours ago [-]
Your comment reads like: "This blanket prohibition is justified, because any drone could potentially be dangerous or appear dangerous, and DHS deserves unique and special legal privileges to trample on your rights for some reason."
If you intended something different, it's not sufficiently obvious. The most-charitable twist I can come up with is: "In addition to the first amendment, could the second amendment also be a factor in striking down this policy as unjustified?"
> You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.
The same logic, tomorrow: "How do you reeealy tell the difference between a phone and a weapon in someone's hand? It's too hard! It makes us scared! Don't film or else we'll jail you or kill you like Alex Pretti."
calmbonsai 2 hours ago [-]
You don't, but legal precedent errs on the side of transparency and anyone who's flying a drone (legally) in an urban environment in the U.S. already has FAA permitting.
Jtsummers 2 hours ago [-]
> How do you tell the difference between a drone with a camera and a drone with a grenade.
Today, it makes as much sense to worry about this as it does for me to worry about a tsunami hitting my home at 7200' above sea level. It's not happening, worry about it and implement policies when people start using grenade-drones.
random3 2 hours ago [-]
how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?
blooalien 2 hours ago [-]
> "how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?"
You can't until the overlord(s) you've delegated all your thinking to tells you what you saw.
nandomrumber 22 minutes ago [-]
Which is amusing, because it’s you lot here literally doing the groupthink.
I guess my comment may have been received better if I framed it in the devils advocate / steel manning context.
quantified 1 hours ago [-]
Well, by that logic, drones must not fly at all. Unless you say that a grenade over your own head must also be disallowed.
Rendered at 02:36:57 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.
Party of free speech, btw.
If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?
> The dual state is a model in which the functioning of a state is divided into a normative state, which operates according to set rules and regulations, and a prerogative state, "which exercises unlimited arbitrariness and violence unchecked by any legal guarantees".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_%28model%29
I can't wait to see this tested in court. While IANAL the EFF sure has lawyers and their argument seems petty sound.
Really this just seems like a waste of government money. They can shoot down drones and arrest people but those people will get court cases and they'll win and the gov will (and has) have you pay out fines. I'm not a fan of paying people to harass others...
Today, yes, but if the fascist cancer is around for too long, more and more judges will be its appointed tools.
That depends on whether you support Dear Leader.
Support for such measures (welfare, healthcare, unionization, high taxes etc) is usually low among Americans.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
Isn’t it the case anyway that if you add state, federal, local, property, capital gains, and sales taxes, add the money that you and your employer pays for healthcare, that you’re basically paying slightly more in taxes all-in?
This is where the racism comes in. As long as you believe that the social safety net cuts are disproportionally hurting the "other" more than you, you have plenty of space for the cognitive dissonance required to support the cuts even when they are negatively impacting your own situation.
Combine this with the fact that the right has two tiers, one of them made up of wealthy asset owners who politically push for the changes (and benefit from them in the form of extremely low taxes) and the second made up of working class people who can be convinced the changes are good as long it allows them to think those they see as below them will suffer more than they will.
Get yourself a nice feedback loop going in the form of hurting the poor, convincing them the source of their oppression is the "other" to get them to support even more austerity, repeat and you can explain a lot about the politics of much of rural America.
The problem with political violence is that the other side will do the same thing, and you end up with an IRA situation where the country descends into sectarian violence.
Preemptive first strike logic[1] aside. This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out. On the other hand by starting/advocating for political violence you're almost certainly going to get the descent into sectarian violence before you can wipe out all the "fascists".
[1] Iran, anyone?
How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.
(The answer is obvious - it's impossible to comply with it.)
Axios had good coverage of this. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/18/trump-national-emergency-de...
Brazen mis-governance. I think it's particularly insulting to call so many things emergencies, threats. This is the work of the rankest, lowest cowards, to sabotage our nation with such false lightly thrown around accusations, for such fake purposes. Exploitative creeps!
Edit: what timing! Oh look, new Constitutional crisis just dropped, with Trump again seizing the power of the purse from congress! He's declaring rule over OMB to fund DHS, because (you guessed it) National Emergency!! https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/libe...
The Constitution does not permit amendments to change the "equal" representation of states in the Senate, but we can even the playing field by making it easy for large states to subdivide for the benefit of the people.
The Nazis couldn't even manage it with a smaller population in six years.
"How do you tell the difference between a protestor with a camera and a protestor with a grenade?"
Do you see how the assumption of extreme (and very unlikely) danger is bad excuse for violating people's rights?
Filming ICE is no longer allowed.
If you intended something different, it's not sufficiently obvious. The most-charitable twist I can come up with is: "In addition to the first amendment, could the second amendment also be a factor in striking down this policy as unjustified?"
> You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.
The same logic, tomorrow: "How do you reeealy tell the difference between a phone and a weapon in someone's hand? It's too hard! It makes us scared! Don't film or else we'll jail you or kill you like Alex Pretti."
Today, it makes as much sense to worry about this as it does for me to worry about a tsunami hitting my home at 7200' above sea level. It's not happening, worry about it and implement policies when people start using grenade-drones.
You can't until the overlord(s) you've delegated all your thinking to tells you what you saw.
I guess my comment may have been received better if I framed it in the devils advocate / steel manning context.