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

Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#101

Post by zahlman »

maxerickson wrote: post #49
zahlman wrote: post #35

[flagged]

Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory? This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers? This is not a valid comparison…

> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area.

I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle.

If and when that happens, we can talk about this.

> What does this mean?

It means that the clear intent of many of these drone operators is to harass or surveil people whom they believe to be ICE; that I disagree that they have any moral justification for doing so (of course it is moral to record actual arrest etc. actions, in a way that doesn't interfere with them; that is clearly not the same thing as tailing their cars and trying to figure out where they're going). And it means they could be wrong about their targets being ICE, which would mean they were doing these things to an ordinary citizen.

> Most of them probably are citizens.

I think it would be rather hard for a non-citizen to get hired for the job. More importantly, though: the point is that they, too, have certain rights to privacy.

> the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.

I agree that the implementation is bad. I made the post because it came across to me from other top-level comments, very strongly, that a proper implementation would not be any more satisfactory to people here.

> the current immigration enforcement regime

This use of language is poisoning the well.

> they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws.

Can you concretely explain at least one situation in which the US government currently does not allow people to legally reside in the country, where you believe they should; and why you think they should?

When I read the arguments of people opposed to ICE, I am never given the impression that there are any particular restrictions on immigration that they'd actually accept. In particular, when there is discussion of people who were apprehended by ICE and extradited, there never seems to be any particular consideration of the individual circumstances or actions of those extradited.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#102

Post by zahlman »

mindslight wrote: post #66
zahlman wrote: post #35

[flagged]

You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".

> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents

I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive.

> the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".

It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing people are objecting to, ultimately stems from "enforcing immigration law". Nobody would have gotten shot had the people enforcing immigration law been permitted to enforce immigration law in a normal manner. As demonstrated by the fact that it exclusively happened in places where they were interfered with to an extreme degree. Similarly, people only got pulled out of cars because they refused to get out of cars when they were under arrest; they only got arrested for refusing lawful orders; they only faced lawful orders because they were physically obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. All of those things are normal consequences that could be demonstrated on a smaller scale, across time and in countries across the developed world.

ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. This is objective fact that is trivially researchable and which I have repeatedly cited; yet you and others have repeatedly attempted to deny or ignore it, or the logical consequences of the fact.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#103

Post by zahlman »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #38
zahlman wrote: post #35

[flagged]

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.

A drone is less useful for "documenting the behaviour of law enforcement" than a cell phone camera operated at ground level. Because it is filming from entirely the wrong angle, at the wrong time (in transit rather than at the enforcement site).

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#104

Post by maxerickson »

zahlman wrote: post #101
maxerickson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the general public in the USA is supposedly entitled to know whether a given vehicle contains ICE agents? By what legal theory? This is an inversion of the problem. The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. Is there a similar nationwide prohibition on, say, plainclothes police officers? This is not a valid comparison…

> The general public is entitled to fly drones in many areas and should not be punished just because ICE claims they are operating in an area. I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the government has any intention of punishing someone for incidentally flying a drone that happened to be in that wrong airspace, when it's clear that the flight had no purpose related to the ICE vehicle. If and when that happens, we…

Meh.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#105

Post by mindslight »

zahlman wrote: post #102
mindslight wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".

> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive. > the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law". It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing peop…

And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. I'm sorry that you're offended by the plain truth of the matter, but maybe that's a sign you need to reexamine your position.

The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#106

Post by isolay »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #19
delichon wrote: post #3

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-...

And everyone’s a full-time suspect now in the US.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#107

Post by solidsnack9000 »

sameers wrote: post #70
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The FAA revised the rule, but that was their choice, not the result of a ruling or even the reasoned application of a general principle. The very broad power of administrative rulemaking held by that agency is unchanged -- and the power of agencies generally, to make law without legislating, without accountability to the electorate, actually has nothing to do with this administration, does it? It actually…

Interesting points, glad to have started this conversation. Re this being the FAA's choice, I was reacting to this line in the reporting: "On April 10, Levine and his lawyers pressed ahead by filing an emergency motion [... which... ] may have expedited the government’s next move [to replace] the sweeping flight restrictions with a “national security advisory” [and dropping] all mentions of flight restrictions and cr…

You have written quite a bit, here. It would be hard to address all of it in one reply and do it justice.

You write:

Maybe Ars is being too rosy-viewed about the causality there, idk. I have no partic feeling one way or the other though I do want to take whatever comfort I can in the notion that the "system of checks and balances" is working.

They are not being rosy about it but you are inferring the wrong lesson from this. There wasn't a judgment or some other finding that the FAA had exceeded their authority and this kind of rule is too broad to be legal: the FAA just decided it was too much trouble to deal with this right now. In the absence of a legal finding about it, they can bring the same rule back next year if they want. This isn't the system of checks and balances working -- the system didn't even get going.

You write:

...there is a price to pay in vigilance, of having to challenge the legality of agency actions if the particular implementation of regulations infringes on constitutional rights.

Is there a constitutional right implicated here? The right to fly planes? It is certainly not a press freedom issue in an obvious way, since it does not target journalism per se -- it has no impact on journalism on foot, on bicycles, &c.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#108

Post by zahlman »

mindslight wrote: post #105
zahlman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive. > the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law". It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing peop…

And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. I'm sorry that you're offended by the plain truth of the matter, but maybe that's a sign you need to reexamine your position. The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.

> And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents.

No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things.

> should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.

I did not say that the consequences include any such thing. When you phrase your overall complaint this way, you imply untrue things. I have explained countless times already, yet you continue to claim untrue things about what I have said, in a manner that ignores the meaning of what I have said. Please stop.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#109

Post by mindslight »

zahlman wrote: post #108
mindslight wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. I'm sorry that you're offended by the plain truth of the matter, but maybe that's a sign you need to reexamine your position. The "logical consequences" of being a federal law enforcement officer should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done something that has made your job harder, period.

> And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things. > should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done somethi…

Your wanting to focus on a convenient definition of the word "murder" does not invalidate what I have said. It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide. So the technicality that the perps aren't being tried and convicted isn't particularly interesting, right?

But sure, since you seem to be triggered by that specific word I'll restate it for you: You have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution of American citizens by government agents.

If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications, perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Re: Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

#110

Post by zahlman »

mindslight wrote: post #109
zahlman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet again right here you are justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents. No, I am not. The entire point is that the killing is as an objective matter of fact not "murder". The word has an accepted, agreed-upon meaning. The definition is not met. You don't get to change that. When you try, you imply untrue things. > should not include being able to kill citizens because they've done somethi…

Your wanting to focus on a convenient definition of the word "murder" does not invalidate what I have said. It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide. So the technicality that the perps aren't being tried and convicted isn't particularly interesting, right? But sure, since you seem to be triggered by that specific word I'll restate it for you…

It is not a "convenient definition" of the word murder. It is what the word actually means. There is no discussion to be had here because you will not acknowledge it.

> It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide

In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them.

This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this.

> you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution

This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this.

> If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications

I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this.

Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.

Post reply on HN