Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 202 posts

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#91

Post by Braxton1980 »

youknownothing wrote: post #27

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…

> 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"

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#92

Post by JuniperMesos »

Sl1mb0 wrote: post #53
newfriend wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I always wonder what people who say these things think about the fact that we have someone in the white house who was mentioned in the Epstein files more than Jesus was mentioned in the bible. Whatever it takes to get rid of those pesky aliens right?

[flagged]

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#93

Post by JuniperMesos »

Terr_ wrote: post #8
nandomrumber wrote: post #3

[flagged]

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…

[flagged]

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#94

Post by parineum »

Herring wrote: post #28

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...

The right is rising all across European countries that have all of these things.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#95

Post by HNisCIS »

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.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#96

Post by parineum »

Terr_ wrote: post #47
iwontberude wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blue States are actually extremely blue cities surrounded by red counties.

If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#97

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #91
youknownothing wrote: post #27

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…

> 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"

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.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#98

Post by light_hue_1 »

themafia wrote: post #87
Aurornis wrote: post #17

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.

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 as…

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.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#99

Post by gzread »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #29
youknownothing wrote: post #27

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…

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.

We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.

Re: The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

#100

Post by light_hue_1 »

youknownothing wrote: post #27

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…

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.

Post reply on HN