Discussion
The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE
nandomrumber: How do you tell the difference between a drone with a camera and a drone with a grenade.You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.Is there an argument that you and a #? Amendment right to the skies?
tomrod: I agree with the EFF here. Government operators must operate in the daylight.
Jtsummers: > 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.
Terr_: 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 'cuz reasons."Is that your intent? A more-charitable interpretation which is harder to see would be: "In addition to the first amendment, could the second amendment also be a factor in striking down this policy as unjustified?"
random3: how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?
quantified: Well, by that logic, drones must not fly at all. Unless you say that a grenade over your own head must also be disallowed.
vkou: 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.)
jddecker: 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?
blooalien: > "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.
jauntywundrkind: 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.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!
Aurornis: 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.
tremon: Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.
trhway: 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).
charcircuit: >21 monthsIt should be possible to get rid of 99% all illegals in less than 2 years. If the front loaded the budget they could get rid of them all as fast as possible and then there wouldn't be the need to restrict people's ability with a broad flight restriction like this.
ceejayoz: > 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.
ceejayoz: > 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.
nickphx: It's so great here it's like a third world shit hole.
youknownothing: 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: 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: yeah, that too, good point.
Herring: 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.https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
jeffbee: I thought it was to simply throw fascists into the sea. Simple Effective Affordable Ethical
tayo42: Confusing, the right are the ones advocating for cutting these things?
greedo: 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.
gruez: >EffectiveThe 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.
nine_k: "Why won't all good people rally together and kill all bad people?"
godelski: It sure would be nice of them to do that!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_: [delayed]
