> You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.

"How do you tell the difference between a protestor with a camera and a protestor with a grenade?"

Do you see how the assumption of extreme (and very unlikely) danger is bad excuse for violating people's rights?

How do you tell a difference between a phone with a camera and a phone with a grenade.

Filming ICE is no longer allowed.

Your comment reads like: "This blanket prohibition is justified, because any drone could potentially be dangerous or appear dangerous, and DHS deserves unique and special legal privileges to trample on your rights for some reason."

If you intended something different, it's not sufficiently obvious. The most-charitable twist I can come up with is: "In addition to the first amendment, could the second amendment also be a factor in striking down this policy as unjustified?"

> You can still film ICE / CBP from the ground.

The same logic, tomorrow: "How do you reeealy tell the difference between a phone and a weapon in someone's hand? It's too hard! It makes us scared! Don't film or else we'll jail you or kill you like Alex Pretti."

You don't, but legal precedent errs on the side of transparency and anyone who's flying a drone (legally) in an urban environment in the U.S. already has FAA permitting.

> How do you tell the difference between a drone with a camera and a drone with a grenade.

Today, it makes as much sense to worry about this as it does for me to worry about a tsunami hitting my home at 7200' above sea level. It's not happening, worry about it and implement policies when people start using grenade-drones.

how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?

Well, by that logic, drones must not fly at all. Unless you say that a grenade over your own head must also be disallowed.