Live data from Hacker News

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

eff.org

101–110 of 202 posts

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

#101
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.

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.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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.

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

#103

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.

> 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.

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

#104
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sit…

> 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 p…

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.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Felony murder, various conspiracies ...

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

#106
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

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

#107
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instanc…

Sounds like a startup opportunity.

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

#108
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 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)

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

#109
post #35
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was to simply throw fascists into the sea. Simple Effective Affordable Ethical

>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 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.

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

#110
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

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…

> 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!

Post reply on HN