FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-drone-no-fly-zone-ice-dhs

111•dayofthedaleks•1h ago

Comments

xvxvx•1h ago

Not shady at all. Can’t have the public see what’s going on.

actionfromafar•1h ago

You don't understand. You must always respect authority. Trump is the highest authority in the land, put there by God.

koiueo•1h ago

I no longer know if it's sarcasm

garciasn•59m ago

It depends on what team you’re rooting for in the sports game that has become politics in the US.

actionfromafar•54m ago

This has been the case for a long time. What's new and weird with this "sports" game is that the side with the umpire in their pocket has suddenly decided the game is bloodsport.

jacquesm•43m ago

Oh from their point of view it always was. You can't explain the last decades in any other way. It's been brewing over time and as long as the blood spilled was mostly foreign blood on foreign soil it was all fine. Now the masks are dropping and suddenly it is plain to everybody what was plain to outsiders looking in for a long time.

vineyardmike•11m ago

If you’re a minority in America then it’s been a blood sport for a while. It’s only recently that the majority demographics are now at risk.

yoyohello13•33m ago

People believing the president of the United States has been ordained by God, and can therefore do no wrong, should be extremely concerning to EVERYONE, no matter what team your rooting for.

actionfromafar•56m ago

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".

yoyohello13•18m ago

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.

bicx•9m ago

I’m sure they said the same about Obama…. Right?

dayofthedaleks•1h ago

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.”

dragonwriter•52m ago

So the unannounced movements of the secret police in their unmarked vehicles also create a bubble around them where usually-legal activity is illegal?

jacquesm•52m ago

That's the goal, it just isn't spelled out.

speed_spread•48m ago

And reciprocally, where usually illegal activity (beating up people and kidnapping them) is legal.

oawiejrlij•42m ago

You mean, shooting them ten times in the back?

unangst•43m ago

See no crimes. Hear no truth. Speak no facts.

hn_throwaway_99•52m ago

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•43m ago

> 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.

mothballed•31m ago

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.

oawiejrlij•43m ago

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.

Espressosaurus•1h ago

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•51m ago

It's trivial to build your own drone without a DroneID.

oawiejrlij•42m ago

For some people

gtowey•40m ago

And you will be labeled a terrorist for doing so, regardless of intent.

jacquesm•39m ago

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•34m ago

Yeah, that’s been the GOP playbook for 20+ years. It’s only recently been used for US citizens.

mothballed•29m ago

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.

roughly•10m ago

The Americans who fought against the Francoists in the Spanish civil war faced enormous scrutiny back home for what was later described as “being prematurely anti-fascist.” The state worries about people willing to take up arms to protect their ideals without being told to do so (or what those ideals are).

CamperBob2•1h ago

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?

arthurcolle•1h ago

I highly doubt this

Edit: owner of matrice m100 and a few other DJI drones

jacquesm•40m ago

Matrice is a nice bit of kit. Building that kind of functionality from scratch with the same weight and range is very difficult.

thedougd•16m ago

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.

theoreticalmal•1h ago

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?

Sevii•1h ago

Potential criminal charges are enough to deter most people.

killingtime74•58m ago

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

arter45•57m ago

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•54m ago

What is the best hackable drone brand these days? Where you can remove all this bs remote ID and GPS disobedience?

acc_297•48m ago

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

jacquesm•41m ago

$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.

buildbot•55m ago

Doesn’t anything under 250g basically slip under the radar (not literally radar). Seems like most drones they care about might end up not being trackable anyway.

djoldman•53m ago

> 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.

TheRealPomax•49m ago

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•45m ago

It's just an extra chilling effect. Or yet another reason to shoot you and your terrist drone.

amluto•41m ago

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.

foxglacier•31m ago

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.

ultrarunner•20m ago

That's when the fiber optic lines will become necessary

roughly•6m ago

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?