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

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/04/no-fly-zones-around-moving-ice-vehicles-this-drone-pilot-fought-back-and-won/

by Bender • 3 months ago

267 57 3 months ago

arstechnica.com

sameers2• 3 months ago

Slowly clawing back liberties against this fascist administration.

Computer0• 3 months ago

Now they are allowed to shoot them down at will.

solidsnack90003• 3 months ago

Not really. The FAA revised the rule, but that was their choice, not the result of a ruling or even the reasoned application of a general principle.

The very broad power of administrative rulemaking held by that agency is unchanged -- and the power of agencies generally, to make law without legislating, without accountability to the electorate, actually has nothing to do with this administration, does it? It actually has nothing to do with any of them. It's something the legislature has allowed to grow and grow over successive administrations, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

0cf8612b2e1e• 3 months ago

I am not sure what is a better alternative. Laws can set the broad guidelines, but the people in those administrative roles have to make explicit decisions when gray areas inevitably arise. The legislature is free to codify the exact rules it wants when they disagree with the current setup.

sameers2• 3 months ago

Interesting points, glad to have started this conversation.

Re this being the FAA's choice, I was reacting to this line in the reporting: "On April 10, Levine and his lawyers pressed ahead by filing an emergency motion [... which... ] may have expedited the government’s next move [to replace] the sweeping flight restrictions with a “national security advisory” [and dropping] all mentions of flight restrictions and criminal charges." Maybe Ars is being too rosy-viewed about the causality there, idk. I have no partic feeling one way or the other though I do want to take whatever comfort I can in the notion that the "system of checks and balances" is working. I'd rather go to bed thinking it is, than tell myself cynically that this was just another whim of an agency, with no real principled attitude.

I believe that the Trump administration in particular - not Republicans as opposed to Democrats - has abused agency independence in a manner unprecedented in recent American politics. I think agencies SHOULD act autonomously to determine specifics just like this one - what vehicles/devices, with what capabilities, can fly where and in what manner, and that we SHOULD value "expert advice" in such situations instead of using that phrase as invective. I think the American people should celebrate that we grant such freedoms because it lets us all benefit from expertise - but they should also understand that there is a price to pay in vigilance, of having to challenge the legality of agency actions if the particular implementation of regulations infringes on constitutional rights. But it's not just litigation that will prevent abuse - the first line of defense against it should be the expectation that administrations will consider themselves beholden to certain social norms of cautious use of power. Do you believe that there is no daylight between this administration and previous ones in terms of how they view what norms they ought to consider themselves bound by? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - if you don't believe that, I am curious to know more.

I don't think legislatures can possibly identify a priori all the ways in which rights could possibly be infringed and make their grants so granular that agencies can't possibly find abusive interpretations. Those can only be determined in specific, real, cases, when fallible individuals attempt to meet the legislated objectives by taking concrete action. I don't understand this idea that federal agencies have become "unaccountable" merely because they issue intepretations every day as and when they encounter real-world situations. The Chevron doctrine seemed a perfectly fine compromise to me - how this court thinks the legislative body can magically divine all the future possibilities and encode them into the acts that govern the agencies is just beyond me.

delichon• 3 months ago

Unmarked no-fly zones at unannounced times and locations are a remarkable innovation. Hopefully they will tell you when and where you shouldn't have been when they charge you for it, but that may be classified.

helterskelter• 3 months ago

Up next, secret interpretations of laws to do things with zero accountability or public overaight. Oh wait we already have that.

throwaway85825• 3 months ago

And have had that for a while.

solid_fuel3• 3 months ago

Before you know it, they'll be detaining people without legal representation, shipping them to overseas black sites, and murdering citizens in the street. Oh, wait that's been the entirety of this treasonous administration.

t-33• 3 months ago

Oh, wait that's been the entirety of this treasonous administration.

That's been the case for at least 25 years. Still bad, but not new or unique to Trump. I'm too young to have a good idea of what the pre-Patriot Act American military/intelligence/secret police was like, but the historical stuff that comes to light from time to time doesn't lend much confidence that they were all that much better - they just did it illegally and ashamedly whereas now it's quasi-legal and fully acceptable.

hn_throwaway_99• 3 months ago

Ambiguous laws (which in this case are by definition impossible to comply with) which are capriciously enforced are a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. Sadly ironic, the US government used to highlight this fact:

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

geoduck14• 3 months ago

Of note, the article seems to mention 3 things: 1) Vague laws 2) Arbitrary Enforcement 3) Lack of due process

All three seem to be important facts for an Authoritarian Regieme

I point this out, because I believe the US has long had vague laws, and our Due Process helps kick out arbitrary enforcement. I also believe that our Checks and Balance system (part of Due Process) is currently broken

throw0101a• 3 months ago

“For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” ― Oscar R. Benavides, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Óscar_R._Benavides

firefax2• 3 months ago

If laws are ambiguous, governments run the risk folks will conclude they'll get in trouble no matter how diligently they try to suss out the spirit of said laws.

When combined with a comical inability to secure government systems, it's honestly super cute that any federal agency thinks engaging in such dark patterns is in any way, shape, or form going to achieve their goals.

terbo• 3 months ago

Reminds me of this:

"They devise laws that are broad and vague, but then they apply them like a scapel against those that they deem a threat" - William Dobson

thwarted• 3 months ago

being specific is the essence of lawmaking and the whole difference between having a Congress and having a mom

~ P. J. O'Rourke, "Parliament of Whores"

isolay• 3 months ago

And everyone’s a full-time suspect now in the US.

duxup• 3 months ago

Heck if they do tell you, ICE swaps plates and tries to hide in various ways.

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.

JumpCrisscross2• 3 months ago

For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these rules would stand under the APA. Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

mathisfun1232• 3 months ago

Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out.

and in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul :shrug:

digitalPhonix• 3 months ago

Losing your licence and many fines are FAA administrative processes so they don’t care. No courts involved.

atoav• 3 months ago

Congratulations you found the key to fascism: Create vague laws that could apply to anyone, then you can pick the people who broke it. Of course you try to only pick your enemies.

Only: the person in charge of that decision is the meanest, most stupid idiot you have ever met and they envy you for your wife and want to live in your house once you have been dispossessed.

The brother of my grandfather was in jail in Germany during WWII because he offended the original Nazis. He said what roughly translates to: "Nazis are all just dumb plebs." And the thing is, he was right.

tamimio• 3 months ago

the order extended no-fly zones to ground vehicles belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Even while the vehicles were in motion. Even if they were unmarked. And even if their routes had not been announced.

I want to know the genius who wrote this, and the mastermind who approved it.

nkrisc• 3 months ago

Whoever it was knew exactly what they were doing, and it was intentional.

crooked-v• 3 months ago

Or in other words: the cruelty is the point.

lenerdenator• 3 months ago

Someone who doesn't get that we're supposed to have a representative government with enumerated powers in this country.

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

solid_fuel3• 3 months ago

This is exactly how corrupt, authoritarian governments have always operated.

fluoridation2• 3 months ago

Do no-fly zones extend indefinitely upwards? If so, can you build a no-fly wall out of cars?

kccqzy• 3 months ago

The article states 1,000 vertical feet. Obviously this is targeting small drones and not commercial aircraft or even general aviation.

michaelt• 3 months ago

The federal government doesn't need a row of cars to make a no-fly wall.

As we learned in El Paso in February, if the federal government wants a no fly zone, it can just create one.

Artoooooor• 3 months ago

Couldn't it be used to identify/track the ICE vehicles? Observe where drones suddenly become enclosed in a no-fly zone (do I understand correctly that operators get notification that they should land immediately)?

stavros2• 3 months ago

The problem (which I've had happen) is that a no-fly zone suddenly popping up might prevent your drone from coming back to you.

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

jagged-chisel• 3 months ago

Are you suggesting that the system is efficient enough, and the users of it are competent enough, that a live moving no-fly zone would be placed somewhere that a drone in the immediate vicinity would be informed and be disabled?

I have my doubts. I would guess one "popping up" would at least be delayed such that it's pretty pointless by the time the drones are notified. Annoying indeed, useful (even to the ne'er-do-wells trying to enforce this crazy stuff) not so much.

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

Related Stories