The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/faas-temporary-flight-restriction-drones-blatant-attempt-criminalize-filming-ice

by detaro • 4 months ago

554 126 4 months ago

tomrod5• 4 months ago

I agree with the EFF here. Government operators must operate in the daylight.

In general the Trump administration is the most emergency based folks on the planet. If it's not for emergency reasons, it's for national security reasons. None of it is explained or backed. They just take the hallpass and fuck off to do whatever the hell they like.

Axios had good coverage of this. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/18/trump-national-emergency-de...

Brazen mis-governance. I think it's particularly insulting to call so many things emergencies, threats. This is the work of the rankest, lowest cowards, to sabotage our nation with such false lightly thrown around accusations, for such fake purposes. Exploitative creeps!

Edit: what timing! Oh look, new Constitutional crisis just dropped, with Trump again seizing the power of the purse from congress! He's declaring rule over OMB to fund DHS, because (you guessed it) National Emergency!! https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/libe...

iwontberude• 4 months ago

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.

Terr_7• 4 months ago

A marginally less-extreme option would be to start subdividing larger states.

The Constitution does not permit amendments to change the "equal" representation of states in the Senate, but we can even the playing field by making it easy for large states to subdivide for the benefit of the people.

jddecker• 4 months ago

How does this work if they are not clearly defined on a map? Usually TFRs are shown on drone maps so you know where you can fly.

If I am flying my drone and an unmarked ICE vehicle drives within half a mile am I in trouble?

tremon• 4 months ago

Yes. You not knowing whether you are in trouble or not is a feature, not a bug.

trhway• 4 months ago

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).

ceejayoz2• 4 months ago

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.

evil-olive• 4 months ago

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

y0eswddl• 4 months ago

I'd argue all top down states are "prerogative"... and "normative" is merely a temporary alignment of expectations and exercised power

DiscourseFan2• 4 months ago

Is this not very different from Carl Schmitt's idea of Decisionism[0]? (I think his is more fleshed out philosophically and has a more general character)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisionism

godelski• 4 months ago

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...

Terr_7• 4 months ago

I can't wait to see this tested in court.

Today, yes, but if the fascist cancer is around for too long, more and more judges will be its appointed tools.

Analemma_• 4 months ago

I don’t think they really care about paying out fines, that would be a cost of doing business. The point is to make sure that footage like the Pretti execution can never happen again, because that’s what tanks their support. If they have to pay out a bunch of fines to get that assurance, so what? The fines are paid by our tax dollars anyway, it’s not like they’re actually harmed or deterred by them.

dfxm12• 4 months ago

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.

ljf2• 4 months ago

And inversely, if you break the law, and they 'like' you - then you are freed or never even charged in the first place.

Land of the free/saviour of the free world.

vkou2• 4 months ago

How exactly is anyone supposed to comply with this, given that neither the FAA nor ICE are telling anyone where ICE vehicles and operations are.

(The answer is obvious - it's impossible to comply with it.)

voakbasda• 4 months ago

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.

Aurornis• 4 months ago

Flying a drone within 1/2 mile of ICE vehicles, which may be unmarked, is illegal? You can be flying a drone and if an unmarked ICE vehicle drives close enough, without warning, you have now broken serious FAA laws? This isn’t the kind of restriction that gets passed when the people making the rules care about being fair or consistent. It’s a power grab.

idle_zealot• 4 months ago

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.

gruez6• 4 months ago

Courts have been dodging the question

It's not hard to find contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge_standoff#Trials_of_...

If by "courts" you mean appellate (precedent setting) courts, cases like these usually never get to that stage because cases like these are straightforward enough that juries can rule on them without lawyers getting into esoteric arguments.

helterskelter• 4 months ago

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.

jimbob45• 4 months ago

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.

themafia• 4 months ago

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."

light_hue_12• 4 months ago

You cannot fly drones over 400ft above the ground (with some very narrow exceptions).

So this isn't narrow, it's extremely broad. You can't read such rules in a vacuum without knowing their context.

zimpenfish• 4 months ago

I'm sure you can still effectively film them from 1100ft.

But also having to be 3000ft laterally which gives you a distance of about 3160ft which is probably beyond the useful camera range of most consumer drones?

sandworm101• 4 months ago

It isnt about the flying. This is about ICE now being able to take down any drone footage and arrest those who post it. They can also obtain extensive search warrants for uploaders, giving them an investigative path into the lives of ICE protest groups.

amelius3• 4 months ago

I hate ICE like the next guy but if the drone followed the wrong car, shouldn't that be illegal?

defrost2• 4 months ago

If a car follows your car, is that illegal?

If a drone follows your car, is that illegal?

sheikhnbake2• 4 months ago

The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public.

The inclusion of drones and vehicles doesn't really change that.

rlpb• 4 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Levels_of_mens_rea_wi... is relevant here. There are exceptions - I don't know the specifics especially in relation to US law - but the starting point is that unknowingly causing the situation to exist doesn't make you guilty automatically. You have to intend it.

nickphx• 4 months ago

It's so great here it's like a third world shit hole.

youknownothing2• 4 months ago

IANAL but mens rea is a serious consideration here. A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted, so unmarked cars are in practice out of scope.

I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.

smallmancontrov• 4 months ago

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.

youknownothing2• 4 months ago

yeah, that too, good point.

gzread2• 4 months ago

We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.

amluto• 4 months ago

It would be very strange for the government to sue someone for redistributing videos on the basis that they had been taken from an illegally flown drone.

Braxton1980• 4 months ago

A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted

Why can't I just say "I didn't know I was speeding, prove I did it wilfully"

ocdtrekkie• 4 months ago

Strict liability is only permitted for minor violations, like a citation or fine. If you make it up to misdemeanor speeding, it's no longer reasonable to claim you weren't aware you were speeding.

dodobirdlord• 4 months ago

Prosecutors don't have to "prove" things, they have to convince a jury. If your defense seems implausible a jury probably won't buy it.

light_hue_12• 4 months ago

Not how rules work.

First they can shoot down your drone. Second they can ban you from ever flying one again. All without any criminal prosection.

To prosecute you, it is not willfully and knowingly. It is willfully or knowingly.

If you expect there to be ice and put your drone in a spot where it will film them, well you didn't know. But it was willful.

fc417fc8024• 4 months ago

First they can shoot down your drone.

So treat them as disposable.

Second they can ban you from ever flying one again.

Thankfully I can purchase them at Costco last I checked. Good luck with that. (TBF don't actually do that as it will 100% be traced to you. The general principle still applies though.)

The correct answer here is to relentlessly use drones to film them in such a way that it isn't obvious who is doing it.

Anyway the idea that the FAA can have any jurisdiction so near ground level outside of regional airports is a blatant overreach that tramples state's rights and is almost certainly unconstitutional. The problem is that as with so many other areas (such as for example drug laws) the states seem entirely unwilling to take the federal government to task. Texas famously backed down regarding the TSA and we're all worse off for it IMO.

novaleaf• 4 months ago

A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted

IANAL also, but counterpoint: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...

Herring2• 4 months ago

Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.

Support for such measures (welfare, healthcare, unionization, high taxes etc) is usually low among Americans.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...

jeffbee• 4 months ago

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

   Simple
   Effective
   Affordable
   Ethical

nine_k• 4 months ago

"Why won't all good people rally together and kill all bad people?"

gruez6• 4 months ago

Effective

The problem with political violence is that the other side will do the same thing, and you end up with an IRA situation where the country descends into sectarian violence.

torginus• 4 months ago

I'm sorry this the this kind of (far-left) political comment that usually starts the argument from 'basic human decency' and gets to calls for mass murder in the span of a sentece or two is as hilarious as it is sad :(.

And unfortunately very common. I'm not sure what you think when posting this, but this wont endear people to your ideas.

I'm sure there are communities where this is a standard stance that gets cheered, which I'm sure a lot of people would find quite concerning.

tayo422• 4 months ago

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

greedo• 4 months ago

Yes? At least in the US, the GOP has been working relentlessly for most of my life to reduce welfare, to reduce Medicaid, to make unionization difficult and to neuter existing unions, and most of all, cut taxes on the rich.

Herring2• 4 months ago

Ask a lot of software engineers what they think about European-style salaries and taxes to pay for a welfare state.

georgemcbay• 4 months ago

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

This is where the racism comes in. As long as you believe that the social safety net cuts are disproportionally hurting the "other" more than you, you have plenty of space for the cognitive dissonance required to support the cuts even when they are negatively impacting your own situation.

Combine this with the fact that the right has two tiers, one of them made up of wealthy asset owners who politically push for the changes (and benefit from them in the form of extremely low taxes) and the second made up of working class people who can be convinced the changes are good as long it allows them to think those they see as below them will suffer more than they will.

Get yourself a nice feedback loop going in the form of hurting the poor, convincing them the source of their oppression is the "other" to get them to support even more austerity, repeat and you can explain a lot about the politics of much of rural America.

Terr_7• 4 months ago

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.

parineum2• 4 months ago

The right is rising all across European countries that have all of these things.

gzread2• 4 months ago

You think they have these things, but they don't.

I am theoretically eligible to get 60% of my income for 3 months after losing my job, while I look for my new job. But if I actually try to claim that, they demand so many documents and meetings that it's not actually practical to receive that benefit. The only people who can receive benefits are the people who are experts at navigating the benefit system.

For instance, if you do not file a certain form on a certain exact day, then your benefits will not start until 3 months after you became unemployed. That is exactly the same time period this unemployment insurance benefit normally covers. By that time you should already have a job anyway and they will ask you to explain why you couldn't get a job in 3 months, since the benefit normally only covers 3 months.

Nobody will tell you how to navigate this. Nobody will tell you the correct form to fill out on the correct day. If you don't already know the arcane rules, you don't get the money. This is how most European social benefits work. They aren't actually provided to normal people.

ljf2• 4 months ago

There is lot of investment going in to fanning those flames - just look at the way the edges of this are discussed in the Epstein files.

Here in the UK, it is amazing to follow just how much money has been pumped into the various 'right of the Conservatives' parties for the last 15 years, while it might seem like a grass roots movement, the majority of the cash has been coming from those with vast wealth inside and outside the UK.

HNisCIS• 4 months ago

I'm gonna say something bold here: if you're doing anything remotely edgy with a drone (read: you're not a 107 on contact with a mega corp) learn to build them, don't buy a DJI. Pilots are getting hammered because of RemoteID to the point where it's more of a liability to have it than to not have it. It would be like if license plates weren't enforced but speed cameras always sent you a $10,000 bill and took your license away.

You can build a decent stealthy fpv system for under 1k including ground equipment. Use PrivacyLRS or OpenHD, Ardupilot or Betaflight, and an AM32 ESC board.

Do not use anything from DJI, non-AM32 ESCs (deeply painful to flash/configure/update), or older radios like spektrum. Disable all onboard GPS and video logging. Avoid ELRS beyond initial testing, it's painful to decode but not encrypted. PrivacyLRS runs on the same boards so you can reflash once everything else is tested.

LightBug1• 4 months ago

As someone outside of the USA, and who visited for some time a couple of decades ago and bathed in it's relative freedoms ... reading the discussion here and some of the comments almost makes me weep...

You're already living on the doorstep of fascism. Contemplating the right-thing-wrong-think of it all dressed up as legal debate. A discussion and debate you'll likely never fully and truly conclude for obvious reasons.

TiredOfLife• 4 months ago

It's funny how everyone on HN is against filming people in public places except when they don't like said people and suddenly filming is OK.

macintux• 4 months ago

Many on HN are opposed to the government trying to protect itself from the exposure of illegal or unpopular actions.

thfuran• 4 months ago

You think it’s unreasonable to believe that expectation of privacy ought to apply differently to the general population than it does to government officials carrying out their duties? Would you also say it’s inconsistent for me to support FOIA without wanting my personal communications to be subject to it?

jmye2• 4 months ago

Would be wonderful if we could leave the blatantly transparent, false equivalencies on Facebook and Twitter where they’re more becoming of the general user base, and maybe try to be slightly more thoughtful, eh?

contubernio• 4 months ago

Secrecy is anathema to government accountability. It is not the same to film private persons as it is to film government agents.

Bender• 4 months ago

This only restricts flying. Ground based drones do not fly. Problem solved.

DiscourseFan2• 4 months ago

Nobody is even talking about the worst part...the worst part is, that Trump's economic policies are working, at least according to the latest jobs data. Artificially restricting the labor pool, creating massive corporate levies, forcing businesses to hire domestic labor at the same time. Growth has slowed, freedom and movement have slowed, but the "working class" (except Mexicans and other immigrants I guess) is getting what they want: exceptional job security and good wages. This is always the course of a successful fascist regime: you can't go too far, you can't go and exterminate 10% of your population, you can't completely cut off exports and imports. No; remember, for all his faults, Louis the III rebuilt Paris, he created vital infrastructure, plumbing--the streets were clean, orderly. Designed specifically to prevent uprisings, so large sections could be cordoned off; main streets sold to friends of the regime. It didn't work, of course, and it hasn't ever "worked" long term. Capitalism unleashes energies that cannot be rested by state violence. Energies that must be embraced and overcome from within themselves--the freedom that lets you start a business from nothing or creating a product out of almost thin air with just the tools at your disposal and the people you want to work with, unbound by market forces, the traditional family, any religious institutions. But it can't happen easily, and it won't be fun either. Only fascism ever gets to be "fun," and then its terrible.

pitched• 4 months ago

Non-American here. Letting ICE have anti-drone weapons feels like the step in this escalation. Is no one over there panicking about that or is it seen as a generally better option than regulations?

fooqux• 4 months ago

There's plenty of people panicking, just not the ones in position to affect any change.

It's a fairly commonly-held belief that certain high up individuals want the protests to escalate so that they can point to them as examples of the lawlessness they've been warning about and/or declare martial law. That's just one reason protesters have been trying their utmost to not let things escalate. People are trying to do things "the right way" through legislation as well but that's extremely slow.

Ms-J• 4 months ago

Wouldn't it be possible to use a printed drone or one with flashed firmware to remove the spying such as broadcasting an ID?

If the drone is stolen by the police there wouldn't be any identifying info and by that time the operator would be able to leave the area without them tracing the signal back to the source.

The FAA’s flight restriction for drones is an attempt to criminalize filming ICE

Related Stories