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

"Authoritarian regimes’ unclear laws make anyone a suspect" - https://ge.usembassy.gov/authoritarian-regimes-unclear-laws-...

The evidence could be just some regular looking vehicle you can't find anything about and it's just "trust me bro those were feds" and you're out of luck.

Not that a government that just pops up no-fly zones would care about your drone, but just saying.

Or maybe they do get that, but find it incredibly inconvenient to their own aspirations.

I appreciate the fact that HN does not have personalized echo chamber aka feeds.

Government overreach is a concern for a lot of HNers; hence this was voted up.

"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."

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

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.

Is there no concern for what would happen in case of mistaken identity?

What does this mean? Why do you think the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict drone operations?

Knowing that a vehicle contains ICE agents, is there a reason that someone should be able to pursue it with a drone? Does this accomplish a legitimate purpose other than tracking the vehicle's position (again, presumably to disseminate the information "this is an ICE vehicle")? Is there a reason why this would not reasonably be seen as harassment from the agents' perspective?

Again, this is an inversion of the problem. If the general public is allowed to operate drones in certain areas, that use should not be subject to widespread, unjustified restrictions.

re ICE agents American citizens, entitled to the same rights as other American citizens?

Most of them probably are citizens.

Do people here believe that the purpose of enacting such no-fly zones is something other than preventing drones from following the vehicles for surveillance and information-sharing purposes? Especially given the idea that the zone moves with the vehicle?

The motivation isn't the problem, the problem is that the implementation infringes on the rights of citizens.

Is there a reason why the government of the USA should not be permitted to enforce its own immigration law? In particular, is there a reason why people who have illegally entered the country per that law, and who have what I'm told is called a "final order of removal", should be permitted to remain within the country?

People opposing the current immigration enforcement regime are not protesting the existence of law, they disagree with the formulation and implementation of the laws. Is it your position that questioning the formulation or implementation of a law should not be allowed?

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.