Unmarked no-fly zones at unannounced times and locations are a remarkable innovation. Hopefully they will tell you when and where you shouldn't have been when they charge you for it, but that may be classified.
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:
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.
Couldn't it be used to identify/track the ICE vehicles? Observe where drones suddenly become enclosed in a no-fly zone (do I understand correctly that operators get notification that they should land immediately)?
> the order extended no-fly zones to ground vehicles belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Even while the vehicles were in motion. Even if they were unmarked. And even if their routes had not been announced.
I want to know the genius who wrote this, and the mastermind who approved it.
Why would you allow drones near moving vehicles in the first place, ICE or not?
The FAA needs to get off its ass with drones, it’s only a matter of time before some dipshit trying to get TikTok footage or an actual bad actor brings down a fucking airliner with one of these. It’s insane to me how unregulated drones generally are.
And don't get me started on unregulated basketballs, many of those have much more mass than some of the smaller drones! We need to close the basketball gap, now.
I'm not from the USA so I need a bit of explanation here.
Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory?
Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?
Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?
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?
Are ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American 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?
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?
Edit: Is there something wrong with asking any of the above questions? If so, why?
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.
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.
Unmarked no-fly zones at unannounced times and locations are a remarkable innovation. Hopefully they will tell you when and where you shouldn't have been when they charge you for it, but that may be classified.
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-...
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.
Couldn't it be used to identify/track the ICE vehicles? Observe where drones suddenly become enclosed in a no-fly zone (do I understand correctly that operators get notification that they should land immediately)?
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.
> the order extended no-fly zones to ground vehicles belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Even while the vehicles were in motion. Even if they were unmarked. And even if their routes had not been announced.
I want to know the genius who wrote this, and the mastermind who approved it.
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.
AI?
Why would you allow drones near moving vehicles in the first place, ICE or not?
The FAA needs to get off its ass with drones, it’s only a matter of time before some dipshit trying to get TikTok footage or an actual bad actor brings down a fucking airliner with one of these. It’s insane to me how unregulated drones generally are.
6/10ths of a mile?
And don't get me started on unregulated basketballs, many of those have much more mass than some of the smaller drones! We need to close the basketball gap, now.
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.
I'm not from the USA so I need a bit of explanation here.
Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory?
Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers?
Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?
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?
Are ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American 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?
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?
Edit: Is there something wrong with asking any of the above questions? If so, why?
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.
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.