Vacate a drone restriction that criminalized recording immigration agents | Hacker News Reader

Vacate a drone restriction that criminalized recording immigration agents

eff.org

95 pointshn_acker17 comments

As stated in the article, this restriction was already rescinded (to avoid a lawsuit reaching court) and replaced with an advisory stating that drones near DHS vehicles might be taken down:

https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/FAA-drone-ad...

The effort from the EFF is to get the original restriction called back up and vacated - essentially, they want a post-hoc determination that it was illegal, but the restriction is already gone.

That just means the restriction can be used again in the future. All they have to do is recind it faster than the courts work and then it'll always be a tool in their toolbox regardless of the legality of it.

If you read the notice, it seems to effectively make it illegal to fly drones anywhere near a road. How can a drone operator possibly verify that they're NOT within 3000ft of a vehicle owned by DOD, DOE or DHS? Are all these cars marked in such a way that a drone that's over 3000ft away would be able to recognize it, so the operator knows not to go any closer?

  PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS (SSI), ALL UNMANNED ACFT ARE PROHIBITED FROM FLYING WITHIN A STAND-OFF DISTANCE OF 3000FT&#8239;LATERALLY AND 1000FT ABOVE UNLESS INDICATED BY THE FAA BY NOTAM OR OTHER MEANS. 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.

> it seems to effectively make it illegal to fly drones anywhere near a road

That was the point. It was always intentional that it was effectively impossible to comply with. You can’t know if you’re violating it, but if you do, you’ll be in deep shit.

There’s a town in Russia with only one road to get there. Outside of town there’s a stoplight always on red. This is so the police can stop anyone in town for running a red light.

in america, there is right-on-red laws, in russia it is wrong-on-red laws. ;)

Honestly I'm a little surprised the FAA doesn't have more to say about this. They are somewhat notorious for exercising authority for its own sake, and do not appreciate other people or government agencies stepping on their turf.

drones aren't going to show the crimes ICE is doing daily inside their prisons

have you seen the latest footage that was leaked to Congress?

you should google it

hundreds of people locked in what appears to be a commercial warehouse bay with just hundreds of random folding chair, blazing lights overhead and foil blankets in the back under the lights to "sleep"

they are locked in those conditions for months

most with perfect legal status and absolutely no crimes

all hidden from public view so "see no evil, hear no evil"

these are concentration camps in the United States, there is no way to argue otherwise

(ICE is even re-using a prison on a military base where citizens who had Japanese ancestry were held during WW2)

For the people that voted for this they could show all of it on TV and nothing would change. "They are hurting the right people".

The slightly less monstrous rationalizations I've heard:

It's fake news!

It's staged actors (funded by Soros)

They could have self deported.

They're criminals! (who overstayed their visas).

Link?

The original title is:

> D.C. Circuit Must Vacate a Drone Flight Restriction That Criminalized Recording Immigration Agents

The article doesn't mention the safety angle at all. It's reasonable to argue that even though the Ukraine conflict has popularized drones as weapons, given that we haven't had a major incident yet this temporary flight restriction was premature, but not mentioning it at all makes the bias pretty clear.

The TFR (which made it illegal to fly a drone within a bubble 1000 feet high and 3000 feet radius of a mobile asset) has been replaced by a NOTAM that basically says flying near them in a way that poses a credible safety or security threat means they can sieze or destroy your drone. I'd say this is the better resolution, and to me represents a "genuine change of heart" by the FAA, finding a way to serve the safety purpose of the TFR without overstepping.

> not mentioning it at all makes the bias pretty clear

Yes, the bias is assumed since they are the petitioners. It is not their responsibility to make the FAA's case, or even mention any aspect of it at all.

The FAA will be the ones responsible for making their case before the court.

There's a safety angle any time a citizen is recording them - they could secretly have guns, right?

That doesn't justify banning recordings imo.

I’m pretty sure mounting weapons on a drone is already very illegal.

If someone is mounting weapons on a drone, a flight restriction isn’t going to stop them.

It’s like putting a sign on a bank that says no bank robberies. Guess who isn’t going to obey the sign? People who rob banks.

The FAA rule isn’t there to stop bad actors. It’s there to prevent bad actors from being recorded.

To me it's more like the sign saying "No guns in the bank". It's not going to stop someone who intends on doing harm, but that's not it's real purpose. If it was normal to be able to openly carry a gun into the bank, that makes the security guards job much harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com