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

51–60 of 112 posts

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

#51

Post by miltonlost »

tantalor wrote: post #50

[flagged]

In no way is that the most important point of the article, especially when you are cherrypicking that sentence and deleting part of it and still don't include how the updated guideline is still ambiguous. You are the "shit writer" here and commenter.

"On April 15, the FAA removed the no-fly zones by replacing the sweeping flight restrictions with a “national security advisory” titled NOTAM FDC 6/2824. The revised notice dropped all mentions of flight restrictions and criminal charges. It instead “advised” drone pilots to avoid flying near “covered mobile assets” belonging to the Department of Homeland Security and several other federal agencies."

"The new FAA advisory wording is “a lot better than it was,” but it still comes off as “too ambiguous,” according to Moss at the Drone Service Providers Alliance. He suggested that the Department of Homeland Security could handle any potential drone concerns rather than making it an FAA issue."

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

#52

Post by singleshot_ »

zahlman wrote: post #35

[flagged]

I can take the last ine:

If a stranger told you your baby was ugly, you would think the stranger was an asshole even if everyone in your family agreed that the baby is hideous.

Enjoy living in your country.

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

#53

Post by firefax »

idle_zealot wrote: post #48
firefax wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If laws are ambiguous, governments run the risk folks will conclude they'll get in trouble no matter how diligently they try to suss out the spirit of said laws. When combined with a comical inability to secure government systems, it's honestly super cute that any federal agency thinks engaging in such dark patterns is in any way, shape, or form going to achieve their goals.

> If laws are ambiguous, governments run the risk folks will conclude they'll get in trouble no matter how diligently they try to suss out the spirit of said laws Well, yeah, but that's the goal. People will correctly conclude that their ability to act unmolested is entirely contingent upon remaining in the good graces of local and remote authority figures. This produces extreme chilling on dissent or disagreement an…

But to "chill dissent", you must be capable of tracking it down before it hangs you from a gas station. I don't think you're fully grasping how sudden and forceful change could come if just small number of folks decided to stop giving a fuck about the spirit of the law and do whatever they feel they can get away with.

In my experience, folks from a legal/court context who think they can get cute playing the "you can't prove I broke the rules" game will literally void their bowels in fear when the same is done to them by just one skilled hacker, let alone a group of them all focused on a singular task.

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

#54

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

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

#55

Post by juggina »

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-...

[flagged]

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

#56

Post by AngryData »

avazhi wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Why wouldn't you? There are moving vehicles everywhere. If a drone who's weight is measured in grams is a problem being near moving vehicles, what do you think about 200 pounds of person and bicycle riding around moving vehicles?

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

#57

Post by salthearth »

juggina wrote: post #55
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#59

Post by mathisfun123 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
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.

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

> Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

and in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul :shrug:

Post reply on HN