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.
This is par for the course for rules regarding law enforcement. A group of armed men bust down your door in the middle of the night without identifying themselves. They're aiming guns at you and your family. Are you allowed to fire on them with your legally owned firearm? The law says yes, but also that police are allowed to be those people knocking down the door and shoot you if you aim a gun at them. So if that happens, who is in the wrong? Courts have been dodging the question, but in practice the answer is that you're going to be killed and the police won't be liable. You can do everything right and law enforcement is allowed to arrest you, steal your shit, destroy your property, or kill you, and officially you're the criminal for perfectly normal and normally legal behavior.
If by "courts" you mean appellate (precedent setting) courts, cases like these usually never get to that stage because cases like these are straightforward enough that juries can rule on them without lawyers getting into esoteric arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Levels_of_mens_rea_wi... is relevant here. There are exceptions - I don't know the specifics especially in relation to US law - but the starting point is that unknowingly causing the situation to exist doesn't make you guilty automatically. You have to intend it.
I expect a court would rule against the government if they tried to enforce this against somebody unknowingly flying within a 1/2 mile of an unmarked ICE vehicle. I'd feel sorry for the poor soul that would have to fight it though.
It isnt about the flying. This is about ICE now being able to take down any drone footage and arrest those who post it. They can also obtain extensive search warrants for uploaders, giving them an investigative path into the lives of ICE protest groups.
> I'm sure you can still effectively film them from 1100ft.
But also having to be 3000ft laterally which gives you a distance of about 3160ft which is probably beyond the useful camera range of most consumer drones?
Pfffff the rules for flying drones as set by the FAA are already draconian as is and that’s before you begin to run afoul of city/state rules. They’re usually banned in residential areas to begin with (without permits) so you’re screwed even before this rule. Hope you kept VLOS the whole time too or none of the other rules matter.
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.
It would be very strange for the government to sue someone for redistribution videos on the basis that they had been taken from an illegally flown drone.
> Proposed new law could see Swedish media prosecuted for espionage
> Swedish media outlets who uncover news which damages Sweden's relations abroad could be charged with spying, if a controversial law gets the go-ahead.
> Second they can ban you from ever flying one again.
Thankfully I can purchase them at Costco last I checked. Good luck with that. (TBF don't actually do that as it will 100% be traced to you. The general principle still applies though.)
The correct answer here is to relentlessly use drones to film them in such a way that it isn't obvious who is doing it.
Anyway the idea that the FAA can have any jurisdiction so near ground level outside of regional airports is a blatant overreach that tramples state's rights and is almost certainly unconstitutional. The problem is that as with so many other areas (such as for example drug laws) the states seem entirely unwilling to take the federal government to task. Texas famously backed down regarding the TSA and we're all worse off for it IMO.
Strict liability is only permitted for minor violations, like a citation or fine. If you make it up to misdemeanor speeding, it's no longer reasonable to claim you weren't aware you were speeding.
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".
Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)
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...
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.
This administration is overstepping legal bound left and right. If they want you in trouble, you'll be in trouble. Appeals to law, even if successful, will take too long.
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).
seems like they're just using airspace regs as a loophole to bypass first amendment stuff. if they can justify restricting flight over specific areas for "saf
I'm gonna say something bold here: if you're doing anything remotely edgy with a drone (read: you're not a 107 on contact with a mega corp) learn to build them, don't buy a DJI. Pilots are getting hammered because of RemoteID to the point where it's more of a liability to have it than to not have it. It would be like if license plates weren't enforced but speed cameras always sent you a $10,000 bill and took your license away.
You can build a decent stealthy fpv system for under 1k including ground equipment. Use PrivacyLRS or OpenHD, Ardupilot or Betaflight, and an AM32 ESC board.
Do not use anything from DJI, non-AM32 ESCs (deeply painful to flash/configure/update), or older radios like spektrum. Disable all onboard GPS and video logging. Avoid ELRS beyond initial testing, it's painful to decode but not encrypted. PrivacyLRS runs on the same boards so you can reflash once everything else is tested.
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.
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.
I am theoretically eligible to get 60% of my income for 3 months after losing my job, while I look for my new job. But if I actually try to claim that, they demand so many documents and meetings that it's not actually practical to receive that benefit. The only people who can receive benefits are the people who are experts at navigating the benefit system.
For instance, if you do not file a certain form on a certain exact day, then your benefits will not start until 3 months after you became unemployed. That is exactly the same time period this unemployment insurance benefit normally covers. By that time you should already have a job anyway and they will ask you to explain why you couldn't get a job in 3 months, since the benefit normally only covers 3 months.
Nobody will tell you how to navigate this. Nobody will tell you the correct form to fill out on the correct day. If you don't already know the arcane rules, you don't get the money. This is how most European social benefits work. They aren't actually provided to normal people.
There is lot of investment going in to fanning those flames - just look at the way the edges of this are discussed in the Epstein files.
Here in the UK, it is amazing to follow just how much money has been pumped into the various 'right of the Conservatives' parties for the last 15 years, while it might seem like a grass roots movement, the majority of the cash has been coming from those with vast wealth inside and outside the UK.
I'm sorry this the this kind of (far-left) political comment that usually starts the argument from 'basic human decency' and gets to calls for mass murder in the span of a sentece or two is as hilarious as it is sad :(.
And unfortunately very common. I'm not sure what you think when posting this, but this wont endear people to your ideas.
I'm sure there are communities where this is a standard stance that gets cheered, which I'm sure a lot of people would find quite concerning.
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.
>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".
Remember posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of the autocracy. They will gaslight you, make you feel like you are the crazy one, and be the first to say you deserved it when you have finally have had enough and decided to push back.
When I am a fascist, I warrant being chucked into the sea. As far as I'm aware, I am not a fascist, even though actual fascists like to call everyone they disagree with a fascist and call for their execution.
That's the real problem: Fascists copy tactics, and most people are shallow. If you can call someone a fascist and murder them, fascists quickly learn to call everyone who isn't a fascist a fascist and murder them. There will not be a deep investigation into whether a person really is a fascist.
I'm not worried about political violence because I haven't been denying anyone's constitutional rights, stealing from The People, denying anyone's health insurance claims, or roughing up peaceful protesters and random brown people. I didn't layoff a bunch of people to make my quarterly numbers. I'm not so hated I have to live on a military base out of fear.
It seems pretty simple: Live a life where, if you get plugged, nobody's cheering and everyone's angry.
The Troubles had a lower per capita body count than Detroit during the 80s. Part of their doctrine was "bomb with warning", usually to maximize property damage without random civilian casualties.
(Still quite a bit of murder of informers, soldiers, lawyers, and a teenager who happened to be in the wrong car. As well as government snipers firing into a crowd, planting a bomb on a band, and so on)
>How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.
You're proving my point. Political violence just leads to a cycle of more political violence and/or totalitarianism. The Chinese Communists, if you recall, were violently put down by the Nationalists in the civil war. Starting political violence to stop the "fascists", just condemns your society to that fate. Not to mention that people who engage in political violence aren't exactly the most sane people. What makes you think they'll stop at "fascists"? The Bolsheviks eventually turned against the Kulaks, once their allies, and Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to consolidate power and push out rivals.
Violence is coming whether you like it or not. People are already struggling and food prices will only go up this year given the buffoonery with antagonizing Iran. If we're going to have violence either way, I sure know where I'd prefer it be directed. I leave it as an exercise to the student to make up their mind on where it should be. I'm sure the answers are Legion.
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.
Right, so the idea is that right wing policy of cutting support systems is fueling right wing growth. People are dumb, or this is what they want? Both? Lol Seems weird though
The playbook has been to manipulate "low-information voters" by promising that you will attack a marginalized group of people. Get the voters to believe that you are on their side by echoing the fear and hatred they have for The Enemy.
Action against The Enemy replaces any action to directly address economic and social marginalization.
It's how we process information. Avoiding this cognitive glitch takes practice.
> 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.
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?
What do you think “welfare state” means? Do you think “European-style” salaries solely occur because “European-style” people, for instance, have a different healthcare system?
As someone outside of the USA, and who visited for some time a couple of decades ago and bathed in it's relative freedoms ... reading the discussion here and some of the comments almost makes me weep...
You're already living on the doorstep of fascism. Contemplating the right-thing-wrong-think of it all dressed up as legal debate. A discussion and debate you'll likely never fully and truly conclude for obvious reasons.
Nobody is even talking about the worst part...the worst part is, that Trump's economic policies are working, at least according to the latest jobs data. Artificially restricting the labor pool, creating massive corporate levies, forcing businesses to hire domestic labor at the same time. Growth has slowed, freedom and movement have slowed, but the "working class" (except Mexicans and other immigrants I guess) is getting what they want: exceptional job security and good wages. This is always the course of a successful fascist regime: you can't go too far, you can't go and exterminate 10% of your population, you can't completely cut off exports and imports. No; remember, for all his faults, Louis the III rebuilt Paris, he created vital infrastructure, plumbing--the streets were clean, orderly. Designed specifically to prevent uprisings, so large sections could be cordoned off; main streets sold to friends of the regime. It didn't work, of course, and it hasn't ever "worked" long term. Capitalism unleashes energies that cannot be rested by state violence. Energies that must be embraced and overcome from within themselves--the freedom that lets you start a business from nothing or creating a product out of almost thin air with just the tools at your disposal and the people you want to work with, unbound by market forces, the traditional family, any religious institutions. But it can't happen easily, and it won't be fun either. Only fascism ever gets to be "fun," and then its terrible.
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...
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.
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.
Awesome idea: Texas can become four states, Northern California can become a state, Northwest Dakota, Northeast Dakota, and Upper New York can all become states too with equal Senate representation.
Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?
> Awesome idea [...] Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?
What? It sounds like you're crowing over some kind of "gotcha", but what is it?
If we both agree on the same principle, what's the problem? Namely, that citizens being disproportionately (un)represented in their "democratic" government is typically bad, and especially when it's just from ancient quirks of boundary line development.
On reflection, I suppose there's another explanation: Some people go through life with no real principles, flip-flopping based on whatever is temporarily advantageous to "their team". Is that it? Are you projecting your lifestyle onto me, and feeling the thrill of "winning" at being badder?
But they weren't just "ancient" quirks. They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all; and as such should be shown a little more respect than being referred to as ancient quirks. That's not to say that they should be forever set in stone, but we should at least proceed with an honest portrayal of why we're in this situation in the first place, and what's at stake for the different parties affected.
How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?
> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;
Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?
My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.
Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."
Representation in the house is supposed to be proportional to population. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and we should fix that.
Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.
> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others
Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction?
You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan bloc on the federal level can already go: "It's OK for Florida, but prohibited for New-York", or vice-versa.
You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability.
> The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population
So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why are you suggesting it'd change anyway?
This is about enabling people (enough of them, anyway) to (re-)choose their states. It's always been an entirely different segment of the pipeline!
I'm supporting a status quo that was voluntarily and very intentionally entered into by our predecessors.
You are arguing that the current arrangement is somehow a "quirk" and that we should attempt a legally dubious end run around the constitution. It's a self serving line of reasoning directly equivalent to packing the supreme court.
What is this thing I hate exactly? Because I very much support the way the senate and house were set up originally prior to the house being frozen. I think that the disproportionate representation is a good thing provided that state's rights are respected and thus we really are a union rather than a monolithic whole. Unfortunately there are a number of issues in that regard such as the rampant abuse of the interstate commerce clause; I think we should try to fix those things rather than abandon the system.
For the record I'm not opposed to the subdivision or agglomeration of states in the event that there is a direct and legitimate reason for it. But such a reason must convincingly hinge on the internal politics of the state itself as opposed to being an end run around the constitution because a segment of the population doesn't like the way the system was intentionally designed to work.
We gotta imagine a few steps further in time and toss in some game-theory.
Imagine a big swing-state split between Yellow and Purple parties. It's legislature is controlled by Yellow, and they pull a sneaky: They partition into 10x Small Yellow states (5% pop each) and one Big Purple state (50% pop) Let's also assume the whole effort somehow evaded requirements in the state's constitution, referendums, etc.
At first glance, you might think Yellow has "won" by adding more/safer seats on the federal level, right?
Except now the folks in Big Purple are kinda pissed, and they control themselves now. They could choose to split again, leaving things as 10x Small Yellow and 10x Small Blue. That puts the partisan balance is back at square one, except for a shit-ton of disruption and pain and a bunch of Yellow politicians are out of a job. So did they really win? Knowing the likely outcome, would they have tried anyway?
In short, it's very different from district gerrymandering. For starters, every division becomes independent, and it won't even happen if residents are asking tough questions like "Then how do I get my water from the river!?" It'll be a very slow and very deliberate process stretched across multiple election cycles.
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.
This is par for the course for rules regarding law enforcement. A group of armed men bust down your door in the middle of the night without identifying themselves. They're aiming guns at you and your family. Are you allowed to fire on them with your legally owned firearm? The law says yes, but also that police are allowed to be those people knocking down the door and shoot you if you aim a gun at them. So if that happens, who is in the wrong? Courts have been dodging the question, but in practice the answer is that you're going to be killed and the police won't be liable. You can do everything right and law enforcement is allowed to arrest you, steal your shit, destroy your property, or kill you, and officially you're the criminal for perfectly normal and normally legal behavior.
>Courts have been dodging the question
It's not hard to find contradictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge_standoff#Trials_of_...
If by "courts" you mean appellate (precedent setting) courts, cases like these usually never get to that stage because cases like these are straightforward enough that juries can rule on them without lawyers getting into esoteric arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Levels_of_mens_rea_wi... is relevant here. There are exceptions - I don't know the specifics especially in relation to US law - but the starting point is that unknowingly causing the situation to exist doesn't make you guilty automatically. You have to intend it.
I expect a court would rule against the government if they tried to enforce this against somebody unknowingly flying within a 1/2 mile of an unmarked ICE vehicle. I'd feel sorry for the poor soul that would have to fight it though.
It isnt about the flying. This is about ICE now being able to take down any drone footage and arrest those who post it. They can also obtain extensive search warrants for uploaders, giving them an investigative path into the lives of ICE protest groups.
I hate ICE like the next guy but if the drone followed the wrong car, shouldn't that be illegal?
The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public.
The inclusion of drones and vehicles doesn't really change that.
Yes, but what if the drone followed a car they __believe__ is law enforcement (where in reality it is not)?
The US doesn't have any general restrictions against filming in public.
Court rulings citing the amendments above were made to affirm that law enforcement are not an exception to the general rule that filming is allowed.
There’s no expectation of privacy in a public place which includes public roads.
If a car follows your car, is that illegal?
If a drone follows your car, is that illegal?
If someone systematically follows your car (drone or not), don't you think that should be illegal?
It's seemingly creepy, yes.
It might warrent a restraining order, sure.
Outside of judge's opinion that it constitutes stalking or threatening behavior, what exactly is the crime here?
Perhaps it's a neighbour who keeps the same hours and works in the same city block, etc.
Perhaps it's a PI hired to follow you because <whatever> .. is that a crime?
Heard of ALPR networks?
The NOTAM reads:
"ALL UNMANNED ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FROM FLYING WITHIN A STAND-OFF DISTANCE OF 3000FT LATERALLY AND 1000FT ABOVE."
That is somewhat narrowly defined. I'm sure you can still effectively film them from 1100ft.
further:
"FACILITIES AND MOBILE ASSETS, INCLUDING VESSELS AND GROUND VEHICLE CONVOYS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ESCORTS"
I think you'd easily beat this language in court. "Please show us where 'mobile asset' is legally and narrowly defined."
> I'm sure you can still effectively film them from 1100ft.
But also having to be 3000ft laterally which gives you a distance of about 3160ft which is probably beyond the useful camera range of most consumer drones?
You cannot fly drones over 400ft above the ground (with some very narrow exceptions).
So this isn't narrow, it's extremely broad. You can't read such rules in a vacuum without knowing their context.
Ummmm… I fly drones at 8,000ft for arial mountain shots… drones are surprisingly capable given good wind conditions.
That would be against the law in the US. https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers
Pfffff the rules for flying drones as set by the FAA are already draconian as is and that’s before you begin to run afoul of city/state rules. They’re usually banned in residential areas to begin with (without permits) so you’re screwed even before this rule. Hope you kept VLOS the whole time too or none of the other rules matter.
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.
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.
It would be very strange for the government to sue someone for redistribution videos on the basis that they had been taken from an illegally flown drone.
yeah, that too, good point.
We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.
Put it in Sweden[0]. At least you'd have de jure source protection.
[0]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd
Yes, but this is in effect since 2023:
> Proposed new law could see Swedish media prosecuted for espionage
> Swedish media outlets who uncover news which damages Sweden's relations abroad could be charged with spying, if a controversial law gets the go-ahead.
https://www.thelocal.se/20171207/new-law-could-see-swedish-m...
Not how rules work.
First they can shoot down your drone. Second they can ban you from ever flying one again. All without any criminal prosection.
To prosecute you, it is not willfully and knowingly. It is willfully or knowingly.
If you expect there to be ice and put your drone in a spot where it will film them, well you didn't know. But it was willful.
> First they can shoot down your drone.
So treat them as disposable.
> Second they can ban you from ever flying one again.
Thankfully I can purchase them at Costco last I checked. Good luck with that. (TBF don't actually do that as it will 100% be traced to you. The general principle still applies though.)
The correct answer here is to relentlessly use drones to film them in such a way that it isn't obvious who is doing it.
Anyway the idea that the FAA can have any jurisdiction so near ground level outside of regional airports is a blatant overreach that tramples state's rights and is almost certainly unconstitutional. The problem is that as with so many other areas (such as for example drug laws) the states seem entirely unwilling to take the federal government to task. Texas famously backed down regarding the TSA and we're all worse off for it IMO.
> A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted
Why can't I just say "I didn't know I was speeding, prove I did it wilfully"
Prosecutors don't have to "prove" things, they have to convince a jury. If your defense seems implausible a jury probably won't buy it.
Strict liability is only permitted for minor violations, like a citation or fine. If you make it up to misdemeanor speeding, it's no longer reasonable to claim you weren't aware you were speeding.
Felony murder, various conspiracies ...
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?
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".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_%28model%29
Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisionism
I'd argue all top down states are "prerogative"... and "normative" is merely a temporary alignment of expectations and exercised power
Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.
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...
> 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.
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.
> 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.
This administration is overstepping legal bound left and right. If they want you in trouble, you'll be in trouble. Appeals to law, even if successful, will take too long.
And inversely, if you break the law, and they 'like' you - then you are freed or never even charged in the first place.
Land of the free/saviour of the free world.
Welcome to the Authoritarian States of Sycophancy. Or ASS. As we are referred to around the world.
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).
I agree with the EFF here. Government operators must operate in the daylight.
seems like they're just using airspace regs as a loophole to bypass first amendment stuff. if they can justify restricting flight over specific areas for "saf
This only restricts flying. Ground based drones do not fly. Problem solved.
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.)
This is not a rule designed to ensure compliance. It’s designed to punish anyone they choose.
Make no mistake, getting targeted by this will be severely punishing, even if the courts ultimately throw it out.
I'm gonna say something bold here: if you're doing anything remotely edgy with a drone (read: you're not a 107 on contact with a mega corp) learn to build them, don't buy a DJI. Pilots are getting hammered because of RemoteID to the point where it's more of a liability to have it than to not have it. It would be like if license plates weren't enforced but speed cameras always sent you a $10,000 bill and took your license away.
You can build a decent stealthy fpv system for under 1k including ground equipment. Use PrivacyLRS or OpenHD, Ardupilot or Betaflight, and an AM32 ESC board.
Do not use anything from DJI, non-AM32 ESCs (deeply painful to flash/configure/update), or older radios like spektrum. Disable all onboard GPS and video logging. Avoid ELRS beyond initial testing, it's painful to decode but not encrypted. PrivacyLRS runs on the same boards so you can reflash once everything else is tested.
It's funny how everyone on HN is against filming people in public places except when they don't like said people and suddenly filming is OK.
Many on HN are opposed to the government trying to protect itself from the exposure of illegal or unpopular actions.
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...
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.
The right is rising all across European countries that have all of these things.
You think they have these things, but they don't.
I am theoretically eligible to get 60% of my income for 3 months after losing my job, while I look for my new job. But if I actually try to claim that, they demand so many documents and meetings that it's not actually practical to receive that benefit. The only people who can receive benefits are the people who are experts at navigating the benefit system.
For instance, if you do not file a certain form on a certain exact day, then your benefits will not start until 3 months after you became unemployed. That is exactly the same time period this unemployment insurance benefit normally covers. By that time you should already have a job anyway and they will ask you to explain why you couldn't get a job in 3 months, since the benefit normally only covers 3 months.
Nobody will tell you how to navigate this. Nobody will tell you the correct form to fill out on the correct day. If you don't already know the arcane rules, you don't get the money. This is how most European social benefits work. They aren't actually provided to normal people.
Sounds like a startup opportunity.
That's perfect, actually! We should do that in France, so only people who actually need the money will make the effort.
As is, we have some middle class "hippies" finding ways to backpack travel across the world on the taxpayers' dime.
The main thing I’m getting from this comment is that Fox News must exist in France.
There is lot of investment going in to fanning those flames - just look at the way the edges of this are discussed in the Epstein files.
Here in the UK, it is amazing to follow just how much money has been pumped into the various 'right of the Conservatives' parties for the last 15 years, while it might seem like a grass roots movement, the majority of the cash has been coming from those with vast wealth inside and outside the UK.
I thought it was to simply throw fascists into the sea.
I'm sorry this the this kind of (far-left) political comment that usually starts the argument from 'basic human decency' and gets to calls for mass murder in the span of a sentece or two is as hilarious as it is sad :(.
And unfortunately very common. I'm not sure what you think when posting this, but this wont endear people to your ideas.
I'm sure there are communities where this is a standard stance that gets cheered, which I'm sure a lot of people would find quite concerning.
>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.
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.
>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?
> This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out
Tell that to the German left during the rise of Nazism.
> political violence where it is warranted
When is it warranted against you?
Let me guess, it never is because “your side” is never wrong and always “the good people”… right?
What an amazing coincidence!
Remember posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of the autocracy. They will gaslight you, make you feel like you are the crazy one, and be the first to say you deserved it when you have finally have had enough and decided to push back.
When I am a fascist, I warrant being chucked into the sea. As far as I'm aware, I am not a fascist, even though actual fascists like to call everyone they disagree with a fascist and call for their execution.
That's the real problem: Fascists copy tactics, and most people are shallow. If you can call someone a fascist and murder them, fascists quickly learn to call everyone who isn't a fascist a fascist and murder them. There will not be a deep investigation into whether a person really is a fascist.
Must be nice having a worldview so simple it makes MCU movies look high brow. Sure saves time, at least.
I'm not worried about political violence because I haven't been denying anyone's constitutional rights, stealing from The People, denying anyone's health insurance claims, or roughing up peaceful protesters and random brown people. I didn't layoff a bunch of people to make my quarterly numbers. I'm not so hated I have to live on a military base out of fear.
It seems pretty simple: Live a life where, if you get plugged, nobody's cheering and everyone's angry.
The IRA situation was really an unresolved conflict from much longer ago, either Irish independence or the Cromwell era.
The US has a problem with right-wing political violence; it's a long way off having a Baader-Meinhof.
The IRA situation had a slightly lower bodycount than the not-throwing-1930s-fascists-into-the-sea one, did it not?
The Troubles had a lower per capita body count than Detroit during the 80s. Part of their doctrine was "bomb with warning", usually to maximize property damage without random civilian casualties.
(Still quite a bit of murder of informers, soldiers, lawyers, and a teenager who happened to be in the wrong car. As well as government snipers firing into a crowd, planting a bomb on a band, and so on)
How many people died under the Bolsheviks, or the Communists in China?
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.
>How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.
You're proving my point. Political violence just leads to a cycle of more political violence and/or totalitarianism. The Chinese Communists, if you recall, were violently put down by the Nationalists in the civil war. Starting political violence to stop the "fascists", just condemns your society to that fate. Not to mention that people who engage in political violence aren't exactly the most sane people. What makes you think they'll stop at "fascists"? The Bolsheviks eventually turned against the Kulaks, once their allies, and Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to consolidate power and push out rivals.
Violence is coming whether you like it or not. People are already struggling and food prices will only go up this year given the buffoonery with antagonizing Iran. If we're going to have violence either way, I sure know where I'd prefer it be directed. I leave it as an exercise to the student to make up their mind on where it should be. I'm sure the answers are Legion.
"Why won't all good people rally together and kill all bad people?"
It’s so strange because obviously my people are the good ones and everyone knows that!
Confusing, the right are the ones advocating for cutting these things?
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.
Right, so the idea is that right wing policy of cutting support systems is fueling right wing growth. People are dumb, or this is what they want? Both? Lol Seems weird though
The playbook has been to manipulate "low-information voters" by promising that you will attack a marginalized group of people. Get the voters to believe that you are on their side by echoing the fear and hatred they have for The Enemy.
Action against The Enemy replaces any action to directly address economic and social marginalization.
It's how we process information. Avoiding this cognitive glitch takes practice.
> 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.
Ask a lot of software engineers what they think about European-style salaries and taxes to pay for a welfare state.
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?
Huh. Most software engineers I come across am at worst ambivalent and at best highly desiring of unions.
What do you think “welfare state” means? Do you think “European-style” salaries solely occur because “European-style” people, for instance, have a different healthcare system?
As someone outside of the USA, and who visited for some time a couple of decades ago and bathed in it's relative freedoms ... reading the discussion here and some of the comments almost makes me weep...
You're already living on the doorstep of fascism. Contemplating the right-thing-wrong-think of it all dressed up as legal debate. A discussion and debate you'll likely never fully and truly conclude for obvious reasons.
Nobody is even talking about the worst part...the worst part is, that Trump's economic policies are working, at least according to the latest jobs data. Artificially restricting the labor pool, creating massive corporate levies, forcing businesses to hire domestic labor at the same time. Growth has slowed, freedom and movement have slowed, but the "working class" (except Mexicans and other immigrants I guess) is getting what they want: exceptional job security and good wages. This is always the course of a successful fascist regime: you can't go too far, you can't go and exterminate 10% of your population, you can't completely cut off exports and imports. No; remember, for all his faults, Louis the III rebuilt Paris, he created vital infrastructure, plumbing--the streets were clean, orderly. Designed specifically to prevent uprisings, so large sections could be cordoned off; main streets sold to friends of the regime. It didn't work, of course, and it hasn't ever "worked" long term. Capitalism unleashes energies that cannot be rested by state violence. Energies that must be embraced and overcome from within themselves--the freedom that lets you start a business from nothing or creating a product out of almost thin air with just the tools at your disposal and the people you want to work with, unbound by market forces, the traditional family, any religious institutions. But it can't happen easily, and it won't be fun either. Only fascism ever gets to be "fun," and then its terrible.
It's so great here it's like a third world shit hole.
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!
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...
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.
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.
Awesome idea: Texas can become four states, Northern California can become a state, Northwest Dakota, Northeast Dakota, and Upper New York can all become states too with equal Senate representation.
Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?
> Awesome idea [...] Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?
What? It sounds like you're crowing over some kind of "gotcha", but what is it?
If we both agree on the same principle, what's the problem? Namely, that citizens being disproportionately (un)represented in their "democratic" government is typically bad, and especially when it's just from ancient quirks of boundary line development.
On reflection, I suppose there's another explanation: Some people go through life with no real principles, flip-flopping based on whatever is temporarily advantageous to "their team". Is that it? Are you projecting your lifestyle onto me, and feeling the thrill of "winning" at being badder?
________
In either case, more legislative details are in this older comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690336
But they weren't just "ancient" quirks. They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all; and as such should be shown a little more respect than being referred to as ancient quirks. That's not to say that they should be forever set in stone, but we should at least proceed with an honest portrayal of why we're in this situation in the first place, and what's at stake for the different parties affected.
> But they weren't just "ancient" quirks.
How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?
> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;
Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?
My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.
Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."
Representation in the house is supposed to be proportional to population. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and we should fix that.
Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.
> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others
Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction?
You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan bloc on the federal level can already go: "It's OK for Florida, but prohibited for New-York", or vice-versa.
You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability.
> The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population
So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why are you suggesting it'd change anyway?
This is about enabling people (enough of them, anyway) to (re-)choose their states. It's always been an entirely different segment of the pipeline!
I'm supporting a status quo that was voluntarily and very intentionally entered into by our predecessors.
You are arguing that the current arrangement is somehow a "quirk" and that we should attempt a legally dubious end run around the constitution. It's a self serving line of reasoning directly equivalent to packing the supreme court.
> You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate
What is this thing I hate exactly? Because I very much support the way the senate and house were set up originally prior to the house being frozen. I think that the disproportionate representation is a good thing provided that state's rights are respected and thus we really are a union rather than a monolithic whole. Unfortunately there are a number of issues in that regard such as the rampant abuse of the interstate commerce clause; I think we should try to fix those things rather than abandon the system.
For the record I'm not opposed to the subdivision or agglomeration of states in the event that there is a direct and legitimate reason for it. But such a reason must convincingly hinge on the internal politics of the state itself as opposed to being an end run around the constitution because a segment of the population doesn't like the way the system was intentionally designed to work.
Blue States are actually extremely blue cities surrounded by red counties.
If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.
> If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.
Why do you assume the split should be fair? The rural areas can be one state, each city can be a separate one.
That would fly, right?
We gotta imagine a few steps further in time and toss in some game-theory.
Imagine a big swing-state split between Yellow and Purple parties. It's legislature is controlled by Yellow, and they pull a sneaky: They partition into 10x Small Yellow states (5% pop each) and one Big Purple state (50% pop) Let's also assume the whole effort somehow evaded requirements in the state's constitution, referendums, etc.
At first glance, you might think Yellow has "won" by adding more/safer seats on the federal level, right?
Except now the folks in Big Purple are kinda pissed, and they control themselves now. They could choose to split again, leaving things as 10x Small Yellow and 10x Small Blue. That puts the partisan balance is back at square one, except for a shit-ton of disruption and pain and a bunch of Yellow politicians are out of a job. So did they really win? Knowing the likely outcome, would they have tried anyway?
In short, it's very different from district gerrymandering. For starters, every division becomes independent, and it won't even happen if residents are asking tough questions like "Then how do I get my water from the river!?" It'll be a very slow and very deliberate process stretched across multiple election cycles.