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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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...

> 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.

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).

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 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.

Confusing, the right are the ones advocating for cutting these things?

I thought it was to simply throw fascists into the sea.

   Simple
   Effective
   Affordable
   Ethical

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.

It's true, I heard that in recent news protesters have gone from assaulting ICE officers with the smaller 6-inch subs to using entire footlongs.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/man-who-threw-sandwich-a...

First amendment applies to citizens, not just “media organizations”. Serious contradiction between your major advocacy about protecting ICE and your minor hedge to avoid getting ghosted.

> The anti-ICE protesters have been well organized, well equipped,

Civilians being well organized and well equipped (?) is a problem why?

> and sometimes violent

And yet the videos coming out of the US, of protesters being shot by ICE where non violent.

> for the purposes of collecting intelligence on their targets (who are federal law enforcement agents).

What does "target" mean exactly, I haven't read anything other than doxxing agents, annoying, and verbally harrasing them?

Also, I'd be more wary about the state if things when there's plethora news circulating of US law enforcement buying up all kinds of data for flagging undesirable citizens. More so when Palantir is involved and the developed tech is any authoritarians wet dream.

Everyone gets the first amendment

It's pretty amusing seeing someone really trying to do the "I'm just a casual observer here, but.." about this. Like who even is the intended audience for this pitch? Is there some critical analysis here you wanna push to convice people of something? It feels too casual to either be trying to change some minds or reinforce something already entrenched. Its like... nothing. Is this dead internet?

I'm not taking sides here, but it seems the government might want to soldiers to quarter in my home, search my refrigerator, and seize my lemon pound cake. These anti-slavery protestors have been well-equipped with Constitutional protections and occasionally resistant to infringements. I have no knowledge. Obviously, media corporations should have more rights than human beings for the purposes of explaining why everything is just absolutely fantastic.

Nobody is going to give you an award for licking the boot dude.