Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
dayofthedaleks
hn_throwaway_99
One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to have laws that are virtually impossible to not break.
I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone else). This is similar, in that the FAA has a no fly zone but they don't actually publish what it is.
Catch-22 and 1984 weren't supposed to be instruction manuals.
gtowey
> I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional
The rule of law has left the building. The SC is willing to rubber-stamp nearly anything right now.
Waiting and hoping for common sense to prevail is what allows authoritarian regimes to bulldoze through existing laws and norms. Even if the courts were an avenue for redress, they are being overwhelmed by the daily barrage of new illegal and unconstitutional actions. Once the courts get around to addressing these cases, the damage has been done and the precedent has been set.
cosmicgadget
Well, as an alternative to rubber stamping it they can overturn any injunctions and let him have eighteen months of moving drone bubbles until the issue has made its way through the lower courts.
See also Alito's outrage about deportations being fast tracked to SCOTUS.
no_wizard
Anything but an administration being able to manipulate the Fed, it seems. Most legal experts believe that will be a hard strike down on the administration
scoofy
If you think the SCOTUS has been arbitrarily rubber stamping the administration's goals, you haven't been paying attention. I'll fully agree with you it appears to have been fairly partisan, but less than a month again they blocked the administration from deploying the national guard to states:
>In one of its most consequential rulings of the year, just before breaking for the holidays last week the Supreme Court held that President Trump acted improperly in federalizing the National Guard in Illinois and in activating troops across the state. Although the case centered on the administration’s deployments in Chicago, the court’s ruling suggests that Trump’s actions in Los Angeles and Portland were likewise illegal.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-12-30/supreme-cou...
yieldcrv
that perspective is not backed by data, and the administration doesn't appeal everything
very few supreme court cases make it to headline news, and the ones that do are the ones you're thinking about it. those are the ones split by ideological lines, which are less than 10% of what SCOTUS rules on. the government loses many cases unanimously as well. there are some unsigned opinions that do punt things back to lower courts that may be in the government's favor, or not.
all to say, its more nuanced than that. the trend, as a last and compromised bulwark, is there, but that's not how the court consistently behaves.
undefined
mothballed
The gun free school zone act has been upheld even though you could be within 1000 ft of one with no real indication there is one there. Supposedly you can only be convicted for doing it knowingly, but IIRC knowingly has been interpreted to mean as little as you live near the area so reasonably should have known.
Also note, i.e. stuff like statutory rape has been upheld even in cases where the perpetrator in all good faith thought the victim was 18+, the victim initiated selling the services, and the victim provided fake ID showing they were 18+.
So there is not necessarily any need for mens rea in the US legal system.
hn_throwaway_99
But your examples are markedly different to me. Yes, those examples do put the onus on the individual to ensure there are no schools around or that an individual is of legal age, but those are at least discoverable things - school locations are public info, and I think for any adult it's not that difficult to steer clear of anyone who looks mildly close to underage.
But in this instance, the movements of ICE are specifically hidden by the government - heck, they've even threatened to prosecute people who publish this information!! It is the literal definition of a Catch-22.
jjav
School buildings don't randomly and secretly move around all the time.
So while there isn't a line drawn on the ground, it's completely different.
UncleEntity
>> Also note, i.e. stuff like statutory rape has been upheld even in cases where the perpetrator in all good faith thought the victim was 18+, the victim initiated selling the services, and the victim provided fake ID showing they were 18+.
You had me up to the "selling the services" part.
If you are 'engaging' with someone in a criminal enterprise it's probably reasonable to assume they might misrepresent certain facts to make the sale.
gcanyon
One time I was racing across the country in a moving van because my wife was injured. The truck was speed-governed to 75 mph, which I was sitting at for most of the trip. I have a picture of the back of a school bus that handily passed me by on highway 90 :-)
assaddayinh
Speed limits are biology and physics derived. The eye has a max speed, over which it starts to rewrite the history of what you saw. Everytime you have been "frozzen in fear" the first few milliseconds are just the eye rewriting the logs.
So you take that the saccade speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade) + speed of visual buffer reaction + reasonable time to break and you get a max speed for that.
Same goes when you have two points of attention, like traffic in front of you and merging traffic, the speed gets reduced to compensate.
jjk166
Weird that when you're in Nevada the eye moves fast enough for you to react when going at 80 mph but in Arizona your eyes can only move fast enough for 75 mph, and in California no ones eyes move fast enough to react over 70 mph.
dragonwriter
So the unannounced movements of the secret police in their unmarked vehicles also create a bubble around them where usually-legal activity is illegal?
speed_spread
And reciprocally, where usually illegal activity (beating up people and kidnapping them) is legal.
oawiejrlij
You mean, shooting them ten times in the back?
jacquesm
That's the goal, it just isn't spelled out.
unangst
See no crimes. Hear no truth. Speak no facts.
oawiejrlij
I'm guessing that's entirely the idea. There will be even more cameras on them after yesterday, and they're trying to be proactive in having the authority to arrest all of them. They want the authority to arrest someone who was just out flying a drone and happened to film them as they moved.
UncleEntity
IDK, it's probably more a matter where they don't want people to be flying RPGs into their windscreens and this is the first step for them to carry around frequency jammers. The last time I was in Iraq they used them to stop the cellphone detonated IEDs and all the convoys has one or two.
Coincidentally, folks won't be able to live stream their encounters but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...
jacquesm
Yes, because the USA is totally undistinguishable from an active war zone...
throw0101c
> “In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius.”
“For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” ― Oscar R. Benavides (Peru)
expedition32
Even if you won't actually be sentenced you'll still spend a couple of days in jail.
This creates a chilling effect for normal people who don't want to become professional activists.
Espressosaurus
This is a useful measure to point the law as a weapon against drone operators who may be recording what’s going on by accident or on purpose. Any drone made in the last few years is going to be emitting its ID, which likely has been registered with the pilot’s name and contact information.
They can then after the fact come down on that person without having to get facial recognition, grab cellphone beacons, or other similar steps.
jacquesm
It's trivial to build your own drone without a DroneID.
gtowey
And you will be labeled a terrorist for doing so, regardless of intent.
sheikhnbake
Every protester and registered democrat has been labelled a domestic terrorist already in both rhetoric and policy.
mothballed
DHS flagged my passport on a list for literally fighting against terrorist in a US sanctioned anti-terrorist militia. When I returned they interrogated me as if I was a terrorist.
So if you are against the terrorists, you are also a terrorist.
jacquesm
I don't mind being labeled a terrorist. Fortunately I'm not in the USA. But you couldn't pay me to go there. One man's terrorist...
Cornbilly
Yeah, that’s been the GOP playbook for 20+ years. It’s only recently been used for US citizens.
hackable_sand
And...?
diebillionaires
Anyone not fascist is already labelled a domestic terrorist.
oawiejrlij
For some people
amluto
How is an operator supposed to recognize these “MOBILE ASSETS”? For the case of ICE, ICE is reputed to try fairly hard to make it challenging to recognize their mobile assets. But the NOTAM says nothing about ICE per se, and there are lots of things that seem like they would qualify. On multiple occasions, I suspect that I have personally transported “DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY … MOBILE ASSETS”, and any drone flying nearby would have seen this as … a rental car with a couple people in it. All the DOE assets would have been in the trunk or maybe the back seat. Definitely assets and definitely mobile, but I suppose a court would need to determine whether they were MOBILE ASSETS or whether they were sufficiently associated with the DOE.
(Also, had this been in effect and if a drone had been a part of the project, which would not have been unreasonable [0], it would have been really annoying if I was carrying a portable do-not-fly zone and needed to get permission from the agency to take some photos of the equipment I was carrying.)
[0] To be fair, part of this project was in a location where operating a drone would have been inappropriate for reasons that have nothing to do with the FAA or national security.
xvxvx
Not shady at all. Can’t have the public see what’s going on.
actionfromafar
You don't understand. You must always respect authority. Trump is the highest authority in the land, put there by God.
yoyohello13
This is the real danger of religion. When you train people from birth to turn off their brains and submit to authority without question, this is what happens.
salawat
Not quite. Religion, when taught properly, can serve as an innoculant against corrupt states, as it ingrains a kernel of understanding that man, and all his works are flawed, falling short of the perfection only attainable by the divine. There is always something higher worth maintaining loyalty toward. Like most things though, practicing that doesn't make you super popular with "leaders of worship" who wield their position in a human institutions as a tool to their own ends.
terminalshort
[flagged]
koiueo
I no longer know if it's sarcasm
actionfromafar
That's because this is a pretty mainstream opinion now. I'd say... a quarter to a third of the population holds such beliefs.
If you ever shook your head at theocratic regimes such as Iran, well maybe look a little closer to home. "But... the people in charge of Iran are hypocrites, they do nasty stuff at home behind closed doors."
Again, may I point to Mom: "we have mullas at home".
undefined
garciasn
It depends on what team you’re rooting for in the sports game that has become politics in the US.
bicx
I’m sure they said the same about Obama…. Right?
margalabargala
Each time that Obama expanded a domestic policing organization that then went to American cities and executed citizens, the same thing was said about him, yes. All zero times.
frumplestlatz
[flagged]
CamperBob2
Not nearly well-funded enough. You get $50000 for joining ICE, you get ten bullets in the back for filming them.
pineaux
edit: this was for frumple.
I dont know what murder people are referring to, but if its Alex Pretti, I would like to point you to the analysis by Bellingcat, currently posted on reddit. Its clearly a murderous execution of a man that is on his hands and feet. You will not let me choose lies above my own eyes.
frumplestlatz
[flagged]
djoldman
> ALL UNMANNED ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FROM FLYING WITHIN A STAND-OFF DISTANCE OF 3000FT ... LATERALLY AND 1000FT ABOVE ...
> TO: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) FACILITIES AND MOBILE ASSETS, INCLUDING VESSELS AND GROUND VEHICLE CONVOYS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ESCORTS, SUCH AS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) OPERATED VESSELS
Much more restrictive than just ICE operations.
tantalor
This is overreach. Congress didn't give them this power.
See Loper-Bright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
skhameneh
It's been overreach since the start of FAA claims on low altitude space.
From what I understand their jurisdiction didn't begin until 500 feet into the air.
Not only is it overreach, it's encouraging impediments on what has been largely considered private property.
cmurf
When are you suggesting this overreach began?
FAA has asserted jurisdiction below 500' for a long time: balloons and kites since 1963, ultralights since 1982.
FAA certainly asserts regulatory authority over aircraft below 500', everything does takeoffs and landings of some sort, but ground operations are also subject to regulation.
skhameneh
Historically, the FAA had zero interest/jurisdiction in most hobbyist aircraft below 500 feet, they would not even bother entertaining such as it was not relevant to their opperations. Helicopters, planes, and quadcopters could be flown freely under general guidance, with no actual enforcing regulations. These were largely not seen as something the FAA had jurisdiction over, nor did the FAA express any interest. It was widely accepted that fields away from an airport and at low altitude were outside of controlled airspace.
Then come affordable drones and suddenly the FAA attempts to exert full regulation over the space.
To answer your question, roughly 2012 is when this started.
Bender
So be a polite and compliant drone operator and when you find yourself in the middle of an operation because there was not an actual TFR, park the drone on the edge of a building roof where the camera can still operate thus the drone is silent, saving power and compliant. Being parked on the edge of a roof with props powered off is not flying.
@FAA can you tell I am still annoyed by your poorly thought out highly spoofable clear text RemoteID implementation and lack of integration to ADS-B... Also, NOTAM != TFR unless all drone operators are using foreflight to consolidate all surrounding NOTAMS which hint, they are not.
theoreticalmal
I don’t fully understand why drone operators follow these laws. Or any “no-fly” rules in general. Around an airport, it seems like common sense to not fly. Can’t someone just…buy/build a drone and fly is surreptitiously?
arter45
Traditional, permanent no-fly areas tend to be enforced by the drone firmware (via GPS checks), so sometimes there is also a technological obstacle.
This is probably not the case here, but IIRC there are criminal charges attached to violating NOTAMs, so there’s still some kind of deterrence.
gear54rus
What is the best hackable drone brand these days? Where you can remove all this bs remote ID and GPS disobedience?
jacquesm
$150 will build you a 7" with a reasonably long flying time, a bit more and you can do some pretty impressive things. You still need a controller but those can be had for cheap as well. The main issue would be hiding it for pickup until after the event.
acc_297
It may be simpler to build from scratch using parts from a hobby store if you want a drone which cannot be tracked back to you or your credit card
killingtime74
What if you're already flying when they enter your vicinity. It's pretty easy to do in a city. Also they may not announce themselves until you're already violating or even after when they charge you
gcanyon
I think that's the point.
mindslight
One more line of bullshit they can shamelessly trot out after they summarily execute someone. "The suspect approached the members of our protected class with a gun and a phone. Our brave and heroic gravy seals had a reasonable belief that the phone was being used to control a drone that had been following them all day, obstructing federal law enforcement from being able to operate in secret. The subject didn't obey the lawful order to shoot himself with his own gun, so our brave agents were forced to shoot him ten times in the back and send his family a bill for the bullets. We fully stand behind their actions helping keep us all safe from the woke"
(who am I kidding, even my fake statement is too coherent for this clown car of fascists)
salawat
Do not attribute to fascists/tin pot governments any concern over law/rulemaking with judicious consideration for minimizing blast radius or logistical/legal concerns for the populace. At this point, they are hardcore speed running the delegitinazation of the U.S. state in just about every practical sense.
Sevii
Potential criminal charges are enough to deter most people.
tdb7893
Woah woah woah, let's not encourage domestic terrorism here! Because they'll bring criminal charges and that's also what they'll call you so you better not get caught.
TheRealPomax
Are you saying the FAA has a permanent and up to date list of ICE operations? Because if so, that's a public list and something that some might be very interested in for knowing when and where ICE is operating.
And if they don't, there is no basis for enforcement, so we're done.
actionfromafar
It's just an extra chilling effect. Or yet another reason to shoot you and your terrist drone.
ottah
This is literally been the entire purpose of all drone regulations. Hobby aircraft have never been a legitimate public safety issue, but they are an issue for the state's ability to hide. There is and will always be a public interest in recording activity happening in public places, but a majority of drone laws essentially make it impossible to legally record public events from a private drone.
PlatoIsADisease
When I was a child I was a libertarian. I was screaming about how these regulations were going to be enforced at gunpoint, how this was just a way for the establishment to make money, etc...
I'm not a libertarian anymore, but I can tell you, I was a genius fortune teller.
My assets performed really well ignoring economic orthodoxy about supposed 2% inflation.
foxglacier
I wonder if these vessels, convoys, etc. are going to jam drones or use some other anti-drone weapon and this NOTAM allows that by saying "we can intercept or destroy it if it comes too close". That way they don't have to identify how much of a threat each individual drone is.
roughly
Loudly broadcasting electronic signals out of something you’re trying to keep hidden seems like a tactical error, but these cats aren’t the best trained, are they?
terminalshort
They aren't trying to keep hidden. They are trying to avoid their murders from being filmed by drones with cameras. Jamming is perfectly compatible with this goal.
foxglacier
It's convoys of vehicles, not individual people or even individual vehicles. They're not a secret and not committing drive-by shootings.
ultrarunner
That's when the fiber optic lines will become necessary
CamperBob2
My understanding is that DJI drones no longer enforce no-fly zones. Supposedly they still warn you when entering a restricted zone, but hard geofencing functionality is no longer in effect. Anyone know if that's true?
thedougd
There’s a checkbox in the app that implies that. I haven’t had a reason or way to test it yet.
I can confirm altitude restrictions can be turned off.
arthurcolle
I highly doubt this
Edit: owner of matrice m100 and a few other DJI drones
jacquesm
Matrice is a nice bit of kit. Building that kind of functionality from scratch with the same weight and range is very difficult.
arthurcolle
I was unable to ever get it to fly reliably without GPS. It was probably stupid to drop $7K on drone GPUs and all kind of gadgetry (6 battery bay for rapid charging, etc), but it was just really really hard to pilot around in Maryland (Montgomery County). I would constantly have it throw up warnings and alerts, even only hovering a few feet above the ground for small scale testing. I would have to disable the GPS to do small scale testing, and then with GPS enabled, it would straight up not allow me to pilot it. When I moved to Miami, brought it down there, but I managed to find an apartment right smack-dab in the MIA no-fly zone as well. The smaller drone was allowed to fly though, so I eventually got a small Mini 2 IIRC, which was a lot easier to pilot, but I was just so disappointed in not being able to use the larger scaled up version. I wanted to do realtime facial recognition (not at scale, just to show that commercial drones can be turned into research demonstrators) on the onboard GPU (apparently just a NVDA Jetson from 2017 era)
The irony is the M100 is genuinely great hardware - the payload capacity, the SDK access, the flight time with extra batteries. But DJI's geofencing treats the entire DC metro like a no-go zone, which makes sense from their liability perspective but means the thing is basically a $7K shelf ornament unless you want to deal with LAANC authorizations for every single flight.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Bubble of protection is 3000 feet laterally and 1000 feet vertically. From the article:
“Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operate.”
“In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius.”