alt.hn

4/3/2026 at 11:56:32 PM

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

4/4/2026 at 1:49:30 AM

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.

by youknownothing

4/4/2026 at 1:54:04 AM

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.

by smallmancontrov

4/4/2026 at 6:00:27 AM

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

by gzread

4/4/2026 at 7:05:51 AM

Put it in Sweden[0]. At least you'd have de jure source protection.

[0]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd

by my_throwaway23

4/4/2026 at 9:10:09 AM

Yes, but this is in effect since 2023:

> Proposed new law could see Swedish media prosecuted for espionage

> Swedish media outlets who uncover news which damages Sweden's relations abroad could be charged with spying, if a controversial law gets the go-ahead.

https://www.thelocal.se/20171207/new-law-could-see-swedish-m...

by Y-bar

4/4/2026 at 3:25:28 PM

Note: de jure, not de facto.

I'm pretty sure most news outlets would cave with the right pressure, with or without any new laws. On top of that is the fact that the department for foreign affairs is the department where the line between ministry and department is the thinest* - I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, in such a scenario they'd be asked, especially by the US, to put a stop to something, they'd actually put (unofficial, undocumented) pressure on the entity or person in question.

* As opposed to most democracies ministerial rule is highly frowned upon in Sweden, and as a minister you can't issue official decrees that govern how the department itself interpret laws or conduct its business. Instead you (e.g. the parliament) change laws and society act accordingly.

by my_throwaway23

4/5/2026 at 11:43:37 AM

> Note: de jure, not de facto.

It always is until it is too late.

by Y-bar

4/4/2026 at 12:11:49 PM

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.

by amluto

4/4/2026 at 1:49:43 PM

Well, it's a good thing we aren't living under a very strange, corrupt, and incompetent government.

(/s if it wasn't obvious, and anyone who needed that should try changing the channel every once in a while)

by daveguy

4/4/2026 at 1:57:21 AM

yeah, that too, good point.

by youknownothing

4/4/2026 at 6:04:16 AM

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.

by light_hue_1

4/4/2026 at 6:10:37 AM

> 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.

by fc417fc802

4/4/2026 at 3:17:56 PM

As a general point of information:

The FAA very clearly has jurisdiction to “all navigable airspace” which is broadly defined as “all airspace immediately above ground level”.

Which is to say, there’s no minimum height threshold under which you could fly a drone (outdoors) where the FAA doesn’t have full legal jurisdiction.

You can say you feel it’s overreach, but it’s well established that the courts do not agree.

Having said all of that, I definitely agree that the states have been doing a pretty shit job of asserting their rights across the board.

Of course it isn’t just individual states. Congress as a whole has been happily ceding power to the executive branch for a few decades now - which is largely how we’ve gotten to this point.

by sudonem

4/4/2026 at 7:32:29 PM

> You can say you feel it’s overreach, but it’s well established that the courts do not agree.

I don't get the impression that's the case. Historically the aircraft in question were large and expensive and very often traveling between states at high altitude. The FAA wasn't harassing for example hang gliders staying within 1000 feet of the ground.

So not only was the federal government generally not interfering with individuals going about local activities, the few exceptions were people unlikely to want to take it to court.

Now a federal agency somehow thinks they can (for example) regulate delivery vehicles operating locally? That's obviously completely absurd. They'd have zero standing to regulate pizza delivery drivers so why are pizza delivery drones any different?

Not that I have much hope of a sensible resolution. The FCC similarly magically receives the power to regulate local activities regardless of the constitution and that one has always been invasive and yet the courts have allowed it.

by fc417fc802

4/4/2026 at 8:19:36 PM

But planes don't normally fly very low except when taking off and landing. Below 500' AGL and away from airports is normally not the realm of airplanes. Go above 500' AGL and you have a whole host of FAA compliance issues because now you are in plane space.

by LorenPechtel

4/4/2026 at 5:26:26 PM

We run into this with drone filming from county and state lands. The governments assert a right to the airspace above their parks, which is almost certainly unenforceable. However, the governments do issue permits, which one can imagine become significantly more limited in scope once an airspace lawsuit is filed. Ergo, the courts can say whatever they want, but in practice it's even more restrictive than that.

by ultrarunner

4/4/2026 at 5:18:36 AM

> 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"

by Braxton1980

4/4/2026 at 9:37:30 AM

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.

by dodobirdlord

4/4/2026 at 5:48:27 AM

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.

by ocdtrekkie

4/4/2026 at 6:39:15 AM

Felony murder, various conspiracies ...

by watwut

4/4/2026 at 5:38:27 AM

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.

by HNisCIS

4/4/2026 at 1:15:18 AM

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.

by Aurornis

4/4/2026 at 2:43:52 AM

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.

by idle_zealot

4/4/2026 at 3:03:08 AM

>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.

by gruez

4/4/2026 at 7:11:51 AM

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.

by sandworm101

4/4/2026 at 4:01:50 AM

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.

by helterskelter

4/4/2026 at 1:06:00 PM

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.

by rlpb

4/4/2026 at 4:27:06 AM

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."

by themafia

4/4/2026 at 5:52:20 AM

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.

by light_hue_1

4/4/2026 at 12:02:09 PM

Ummmm… I fly drones at 8,000ft for arial mountain shots… drones are surprisingly capable given good wind conditions.

by reactordev

4/4/2026 at 12:45:19 PM

That would be against the law in the US. https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

by hrimfaxi

4/4/2026 at 1:28:47 PM

Not if you stay within 400 feet AGL of the mountain terrain. You can be over 400 feet MSL (mean-sea-level) but still be within 400 feet above-ground-level from where the drone's sitting in the sky.

by kotaKat

4/4/2026 at 1:43:38 PM

If I'm still following the plot, this means protesters just need to get their mountains to follow ICE activity (but remain 3000 feet away, laterally) for lawful recording.

by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

4/4/2026 at 3:19:45 PM

Only if you’re caught. It’s perfectly fine to put your body and life on the line and go paragliding at those altitudes but the moment you strap a headset on for FPV, it’s “illegal”.

by reactordev

4/4/2026 at 8:25:57 PM

Drone altitude restrictions are AGL, not ASL.

I go out on top of the highest local mountain and send a drone up to 12,300' and the FAA won't care. I do the same thing over my house, they would very rightly be quite upset. (But I think it's BLM would care about the drone over the mountain--it's wilderness terrain, no powered vehicles of any type except for emergency use.)

by LorenPechtel

4/4/2026 at 10:14:17 AM

> 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?

by zimpenfish

4/4/2026 at 4:09:40 AM

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.

by jimbob45

4/4/2026 at 11:33:26 AM

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

by amelius

4/4/2026 at 12:40:49 PM

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.

by sheikhnbake

4/4/2026 at 12:42:46 PM

Yes, but what if the drone followed a car they __believe__ is law enforcement (where in reality it is not)?

by amelius

4/4/2026 at 12:52:44 PM

The US doesn't have any general restrictions against filming in public.

Court rulings citing the amendments above were made to affirm that law enforcement are not an exception to the general rule that filming is allowed.

by i_am_jl

4/4/2026 at 3:54:46 PM

US doesn't have an expectation of privacy in public spaces. This allows for filming of anyone/anything in a public space. Following a specific individual or vehicle in public doesn't make a difference.

Simply filming in public is not a nuisance and should not be illegal.

by sheikhnbake

4/4/2026 at 12:50:34 PM

There’s no expectation of privacy in a public place which includes public roads.

by chasd00

4/4/2026 at 11:37:24 AM

If a car follows your car, is that illegal?

If a drone follows your car, is that illegal?

by defrost

4/4/2026 at 11:53:14 AM

If someone systematically follows your car (drone or not), don't you think that should be illegal?

by amelius

4/4/2026 at 1:00:52 PM

It's seemingly creepy, yes.

It might warrant a restraining order, sure.

Outside of judge's opinion that it constitutes stalking or threatening behavior, what exactly is the crime here?

Perhaps it's a neighbour who keeps the same hours and works in the same city block, etc.

Perhaps it's a PI hired to follow you because <whatever> .. is that a crime?

by defrost

4/4/2026 at 12:21:02 PM

Heard of ALPR networks?

by 05

4/4/2026 at 1:05:11 AM

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?

by jddecker

4/4/2026 at 1:39:34 AM

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

by evil-olive

4/4/2026 at 11:42:01 AM

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

by DiscourseFan

4/4/2026 at 11:04:33 AM

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

by y0eswddl

4/4/2026 at 1:15:16 AM

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

by tremon

4/4/2026 at 3:56:00 AM

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.

by dfxm12

4/4/2026 at 7:09:32 AM

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.

by ljf

4/4/2026 at 12:07:14 PM

Welcome to the Authoritarian States of Sycophancy. Or ASS. As we are referred to around the world.

by reactordev

4/4/2026 at 1:23:14 AM

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).

by trhway

4/4/2026 at 1:35:10 AM

> 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.

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 2:05:25 AM

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...

by godelski

4/4/2026 at 2:17:58 AM

> 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.

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 2:26:21 AM

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.

by Analemma_

4/4/2026 at 1:05:33 AM

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.)

by vkou

4/4/2026 at 4:13:36 AM

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.

by voakbasda

4/4/2026 at 12:42:59 AM

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

by tomrod

4/4/2026 at 10:01:23 AM

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.

by LightBug1

4/4/2026 at 6:28:53 PM

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.

by Ms-J

4/4/2026 at 1:43:52 PM

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?

by pitched

4/4/2026 at 2:24:19 PM

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.

by fooqux

4/4/2026 at 1:01:50 AM

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...

by jauntywundrkind

4/4/2026 at 1:39:57 AM

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.

by iwontberude

4/4/2026 at 2:24:58 AM

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.

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 2:41:56 AM

Awesome idea: Texas can become four states, Northern California can become a state, Northwest Dakota, Northeast Dakota, and Upper New York can all become states too with equal Senate representation.

Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?

by 15155

4/4/2026 at 2:57:54 AM

> Awesome idea [...] Or did you perhaps have some gerrymandering-esque idea to limit these 'benefits' to liberal metropolitan areas?

What? It sounds like you're crowing over some kind of "gotcha", but what is it?

If we both agree on the same principle, what's the problem? Namely, that citizens being disproportionately (un)represented in their "democratic" government is typically bad, and especially when it's just from ancient quirks of boundary line development.

On reflection, I suppose there's another explanation: Some people go through life with no real principles, flip-flopping based on whatever is temporarily advantageous to "their team". Is that it? Are you projecting your lifestyle onto me, and feeling the thrill of "winning" at being badder?

________

In either case, more legislative details are in this older comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690336

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 4:23:01 AM

But they weren't just "ancient" quirks. They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all; and as such should be shown a little more respect than being referred to as ancient quirks. That's not to say that they should be forever set in stone, but we should at least proceed with an honest portrayal of why we're in this situation in the first place, and what's at stake for the different parties affected.

by quantummagic

4/4/2026 at 4:15:55 PM

> That's not to say that they should be forever set in stone

In fact, they were intended to be _actively_ reviewed and updated every 2-3 decades. But we don't and haven't done that, for and around the EC in particular, since at least the Civil War.

And when people talk about it, they're immediately assumed to have ill intent. In fact, they too, by talking about it, are also following the covenants of the same people who made those "commitments".

by FireBeyond

4/4/2026 at 4:58:08 AM

> But they weren't just "ancient" quirks.

How else would you describe the way populations grew more places labeled X and not places labeled Y over the course of 250 years?

> They were commitments made to your fellow Americans in smaller states. Commitments that were required to allow the formation of the country at all;

Is this just a complaint about phrasing, or are you claiming some commitment would be broken?

My proposal has no effect on any commitments made to states, neither in letter nor in spirit. It doesn't change the rules for Senate nor House representation, and it doesn't infringe on the sovereignty of any state. If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.

Namely, the betrayal which happens when when humans (residing within the borders of a high-population state) are partially disenfranchised, and coalition of low-pop states vows: "Even though it's entirely within your own borders, we will veto any attempts to fix it. No other states except us can be small, we are pulling up the ladder. In order for us to keep an advantage your residents must suffer."

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 3:53:39 PM

> If anything is restores state-sovereignty in one narrow scenario, a scenario no signatory ever believed was an intended feature.

The most direct fault leading to that is the massive expansion of the Commerce Clause and the following elevation of every major issue to the federal level. The founders never expected this because the federal government wasn’t even supposed to be able to dictate most intra-state things.

The idea of the Senate makes sense, at least to me. States give up some sovereignty to be in the union, the Senate gives each state equal representation because they’ve each given up the same level of self-governance. The House reflects people equally as members of the union, and the Senate reflects states equally as members of the union.

Without the Senate, small states are giving up way more sovereignty than larger ones. Eg Rhode Island would have practically no sovereignty, they’d just be captives of Texas, California, etc. They don’t have enough people to swing a vote, so no federal party is going to campaign there or listen to what they want.

Making more states dilutes power in the Senate, and I don’t see a clean way to do that. If we allow arbitrary divisions of states, we invoke a race to the bottom where states can just fragment into a million tiny states and chaos ensues. If we enforce a lower population limit then the Senate just reflects the populace and becomes a pointless copy of the House.

by everforward

4/4/2026 at 6:27:14 AM

Representation in the house is supposed to be proportional to population. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and we should fix that.

Yammering on about unequal representation in the senate as though it's some great injustice is either partisan or ignorant. The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population and attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others is no better than attempting to pack the supreme court or any other blatantly disingenuous behavior.

by fc417fc802

4/4/2026 at 7:02:56 AM

> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others

Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction?

You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan bloc on the federal level can already go: "It's OK for Florida, but prohibited for New-York", or vice-versa.

You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability.

> The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population

So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why are you suggesting it'd change anyway?

This is about enabling people (enough of them, anyway) to (re-)choose their states. It's always been an entirely different segment of the pipeline!

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 10:00:50 AM

I'm supporting a status quo that was voluntarily and very intentionally entered into by our predecessors.

You are arguing that the current arrangement is somehow a "quirk" and that we should attempt a legally dubious end run around the constitution. It's a self serving line of reasoning directly equivalent to packing the supreme court.

> You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate

What is this thing I hate exactly? Because I very much support the way the senate and house were set up originally prior to the house being frozen. I think that the disproportionate representation is a good thing provided that state's rights are respected and thus we really are a union rather than a monolithic whole. Unfortunately there are a number of issues in that regard such as the rampant abuse of the interstate commerce clause; I think we should try to fix those things rather than abandon the system.

For the record I'm not opposed to the subdivision or agglomeration of states in the event that there is a direct and legitimate reason for it. But such a reason must convincingly hinge on the internal politics of the state itself as opposed to being an end run around the constitution because a segment of the population doesn't like the way the system was intentionally designed to work.

by fc417fc802

4/4/2026 at 2:57:44 AM

[flagged]

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 5:39:58 AM

Blue States are actually extremely blue cities surrounded by red counties.

If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.

by parineum

4/4/2026 at 6:46:29 AM

> If you split California into 10 states, most will be red.

Why do you assume the split should be fair? The rural areas can be one state, each city can be a separate one.

That would fly, right?

by vkou

4/4/2026 at 8:05:54 AM

We gotta imagine a few steps further in time and toss in some game-theory.

Imagine a big swing-state split between Yellow and Purple parties. It's legislature is controlled by Yellow, and they pull a sneaky: They partition into 10x Small Yellow states (5% pop each) and one Big Purple state (50% pop) Let's also assume the whole effort somehow evaded requirements in the state's constitution, referendums, etc.

At first glance, you might think Yellow has "won" by adding more/safer seats on the federal level, right?

Except now the folks in Big Purple are kinda pissed, and they control themselves now. They could choose to split again, leaving things as 10x Small Yellow and 10x Small Blue. That puts the partisan balance is back at square one, except for a shit-ton of disruption and pain and a bunch of Yellow politicians are out of a job. So did they really win? Knowing the likely outcome, would they have tried anyway?

In short, it's very different from district gerrymandering. For starters, every division becomes independent, and it won't even happen if residents are asking tough questions like "Then how do I get my water from the river!?" It'll be a very slow and very deliberate process stretched across multiple election cycles.

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 1:53:01 AM

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...

by Herring

4/4/2026 at 2:20:48 AM

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.

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 5:37:13 AM

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

by parineum

4/4/2026 at 6:05:53 AM

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.

by gzread

4/4/2026 at 9:24:08 AM

That's perfect, actually! We should do that in France, so only people who actually need the money will make the effort.

As is, we have some middle class "hippies" finding ways to backpack travel across the world on the taxpayers' dime.

by BoingBoomTschak

4/4/2026 at 12:19:33 PM

The main thing I’m getting from this comment is that Fox News must exist in France.

by justin66

4/4/2026 at 5:46:43 PM

Sure, because no one can disagree with you unless they are a stupid sheep that subscribes to a 2008-era of Fox News viewing.

Jon Stewart really got you good with Fox Bad level of critical thinking.

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 6:47:20 AM

Sounds like a startup opportunity.

by genxy

4/4/2026 at 7:14:45 AM

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.

by ljf

4/4/2026 at 2:29:14 AM

[flagged]

by newfriend

4/4/2026 at 2:43:59 AM

Fascism always needs an enemy/excuse/scapegoat, and if it can’t find one it makes one out of thin air.

It can’t actually solve societal problems, that requires progressives.

by Herring

4/4/2026 at 3:32:43 AM

I don’t think this has ever actually been a critique. It solves societal problems in a way that many people don’t like while introducing others.

by nostrebored

4/5/2026 at 12:39:50 AM

No, it doesn't solve any. You know this because of all the lying and child rape and murder. That's not how people who genuinely want to solve problems and improve society act.

It's basically just a power grab by a tiny fraction (< 1%) of the population against everyone else (including the rubes). And it doesn't make the rich happy either because we are social animals. It's better to be poor in Finland than super rich in Somalia.

by Herring

4/4/2026 at 2:48:33 AM

[flagged]

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 4:35:35 AM

Are you talking about the razor wire that the supreme court allowed the administration to remove from the Texas border? If so, a little disingenuous to say fences and barriors when talking about razor wire. If not, please cite your sources so we can all be informed.

by gusgus01

4/4/2026 at 4:56:11 AM

[flagged]

by JuniperMesos

4/4/2026 at 7:23:45 AM

Sure, but I would consider mines laid in a strait a barrier or fence, and I would consider the radiation at Chernobyl a barrier to entry, and I would consider a hedgerow a barrier or fence as well. I think it's important to specify the type of barrier or fence when discussing the removal of it, it's a long gray spectrum and not black and white.

It it generally legal in the USA to put a fence around my property, but it is not generally legal to put razor wire around my property, so even the US govt thinks there's a difference.

It's important to consider the words and the portrayal of events when discussing politically charged topics.

by gusgus01

4/4/2026 at 2:39:28 AM

You mean like both Obama and Biden did, much to the dislike of people on the left of the Democratic party?

by Tostino

4/4/2026 at 2:41:11 AM

I always wonder what people who say these things think about the fact that we have someone in the white house who was mentioned in the Epstein files more than Jesus was mentioned in the bible. Whatever it takes to get rid of those pesky aliens right?

by Sl1mb0

4/4/2026 at 3:36:15 AM

These are completely orthogonal. That’s cool if you want to appeal to an in group, but I think you’ll find that a huge portion of the country thinks that we should have rules around immigration. So do most other countries.

You should probably argue your actual position instead of “your guy bad my guy good”. This comment is more Reddit than HN.

by nostrebored

4/4/2026 at 5:19:45 AM

[flagged]

by JuniperMesos

4/4/2026 at 1:56:26 AM

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

   Simple
   Effective
   Affordable
   Ethical

by jeffbee

4/4/2026 at 9:51:28 AM

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.

by torginus

4/4/2026 at 2:08:21 AM

>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.

by gruez

4/4/2026 at 2:12:36 AM

The problem with refraining from political violence where it is warranted is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.

by dragonwriter

4/4/2026 at 2:19:42 AM

>is that the other side will do it anyway and you end up dead.

Preemptive first strike logic[1] aside. This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out. On the other hand by starting/advocating for political violence you're almost certainly going to get the descent into sectarian violence before you can wipe out all the "fascists".

[1] Iran, anyone?

by gruez

4/4/2026 at 11:42:01 AM

> This logic doesn't work because political violence never gets out of hand so fast that an entire political movement can be wiped out

Tell that to the German left during the rise of Nazism.

by girvo

4/4/2026 at 2:26:48 PM

That just leads to the second problem. Do you think a few car bombs would have stopped Nazis in their tracks? Or it would just create even more antipathy towards Jews?

by gruez

4/5/2026 at 7:57:14 AM

The Nazis succeeded in wiping out their opposition through violence. Why is that you think that Nazis were able to, but the German left (in this hypothetical) would not have been able to do so in kind?

by girvo

4/4/2026 at 2:55:31 AM

[flagged]

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 3:55:20 AM

Remember posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of the autocracy. They will gaslight you, make you feel like you are the crazy one, and be the first to say you deserved it when you have finally have had enough and decided to push back.

by wewtyflakes

4/4/2026 at 5:45:29 PM

It’s posts like this and how they are so glib in the face of autisitic-level lack of empathy.

You people seriously can’t even for an instant entertain that you have been misled, lied to, it’s always those other people.

There is no topic you are wrong on, wow, amazing!

You aren’t the ones parroting a narrative (that always seemingly for no reason at all favors say… China), no no, it’s the other side, they’re the cult, they are the sheep, and they’re controlled by Koch’s or Jews or whatever.

If you grew up in the life of a conservative person, you would vote and think like them. End of story. You aren't special, you’re just another cog.

You aren’t morally superior, you aren’t even actually all that different from the people you have been told to hate. You’ve been conditioned that the world is ending by a trillions of dollars media campaign your entire life and that every person in power that doesn’t play a specific game is Hilter and fascism is on its way.

Consider this… what if you are the crazy one? How would you know it? Because you’re smarter? Because you have an innate ability to align with a group but somehow also maintained the ability to see outside of it?

We’ve never had an objectively better world for all humans, and yet you been programmed to subjectively consider it never worse. Hedonic treadmill doesn’t begin to cover it.

All your claims just sound like game to me. The good people are politically homeless, and you seem to be not that.

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 10:17:51 PM

I don't want the country led by a malicious, bad-faith, sex predator, I don't care which side they are on; there is no amount of gas-lighting you can do to distract from that, no matter how much you want it to not be true.

by wewtyflakes

4/5/2026 at 1:49:32 AM

>don’t gas light me while I repeat ever Reddit orange man bad talking point I absorbed!

lol. Ok

by SV_BubbleTime

4/5/2026 at 3:35:18 AM

Yes, deny your eyes and ears, your masters love that. Enjoy the ashes.

by wewtyflakes

4/5/2026 at 1:52:25 PM

I don’t like Trump, but I’m not programmed to hate either.

I am able to step outside a bubble. You think that everyone who doesn’t subscribe to orange man bad must be a cultist… that’s your perspective because it’s all you recognize in yourself.

But keep telling other people they’re programmed.

by SV_BubbleTime

4/5/2026 at 4:00:05 PM

I think you're programed to stir the pot, beep boop.

by wewtyflakes

4/4/2026 at 6:08:33 AM

When I am a fascist, I warrant being chucked into the sea. As far as I'm aware, I am not a fascist, even though actual fascists like to call everyone they disagree with a fascist and call for their execution.

That's the real problem: Fascists copy tactics, and most people are shallow. If you can call someone a fascist and murder them, fascists quickly learn to call everyone who isn't a fascist a fascist and murder them. There will not be a deep investigation into whether a person really is a fascist.

by gzread

4/4/2026 at 9:26:23 AM

[flagged]

by BoingBoomTschak

4/4/2026 at 3:21:33 AM

I'm not worried about political violence because I haven't been denying anyone's constitutional rights, stealing from The People, denying anyone's health insurance claims, or roughing up peaceful protesters and random brown people. I didn't layoff a bunch of people to make my quarterly numbers. I'm not so hated I have to live on a military base out of fear.

It seems pretty simple: Live a life where, if you get plugged, nobody's cheering and everyone's angry.

by analognoise

4/4/2026 at 6:56:53 AM

The IRA situation was really an unresolved conflict from much longer ago, either Irish independence or the Cromwell era.

The US has a problem with right-wing political violence; it's a long way off having a Baader-Meinhof.

by pjc50

4/4/2026 at 2:10:17 AM

The IRA situation had a slightly lower bodycount than the not-throwing-1930s-fascists-into-the-sea one, did it not?

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 6:54:56 AM

The Troubles had a lower per capita body count than Detroit during the 80s. Part of their doctrine was "bomb with warning", usually to maximize property damage without random civilian casualties.

(Still quite a bit of murder of informers, soldiers, lawyers, and a teenager who happened to be in the wrong car. As well as government snipers firing into a crowd, planting a bomb on a band, and so on)

by pjc50

4/4/2026 at 2:20:29 AM

How many people died under the Bolsheviks, or the Communists in China?

by gruez

4/4/2026 at 2:31:27 AM

More than one or two, if memory serves correct.

How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.

by tomrod

4/4/2026 at 2:52:59 AM

>How many people died under the totalitarian regimes that preceded them? These oppressive regimes did not start in a vacuum.

You're proving my point. Political violence just leads to a cycle of more political violence and/or totalitarianism. The Chinese Communists, if you recall, were violently put down by the Nationalists in the civil war. Starting political violence to stop the "fascists", just condemns your society to that fate. Not to mention that people who engage in political violence aren't exactly the most sane people. What makes you think they'll stop at "fascists"? The Bolsheviks eventually turned against the Kulaks, once their allies, and Mao launched the Cultural Revolution to consolidate power and push out rivals.

by gruez

4/4/2026 at 7:13:55 AM

Violence is coming whether you like it or not. People are already struggling and food prices will only go up this year given the buffoonery with antagonizing Iran. If we're going to have violence either way, I sure know where I'd prefer it be directed. I leave it as an exercise to the student to make up their mind on where it should be. I'm sure the answers are Legion.

by salawat

4/4/2026 at 2:16:34 PM

> Violence is coming whether you like it or not.

What? No, it isn't inevitable that the US descends into sectarian violence. What a silly notion. There remains more that unites us than divides us.

If the US does descend into violence, the blame can be squarely assigned to the propagandists (typically but not uniformly supporting the right wing) for twisting reality and making people feel their lives are under constant attack. How many Baby Boomer and older Gen X relations in your life are afraid to go to the mall or fear an apartment building being built in their local neighborhood for perceived increases to crime rates (versus standard NIMBYism of higher traffic issues)? Anecdotally, the FOX and ONAN and NEWSMAX views in my world declare every summer will lead to a race war. None of the "mainstream" media views think twice about that before being threatened by the federal government.

Strange.

by tomrod

4/4/2026 at 2:18:15 PM

We are definitely more in agreement than disagreement.

Yes, the communist regimes were absolutely awful - both from nuts-and-bolts logistics failures as well as what was described in an earlier thread here as "prerogative" application of the law.

by tomrod

4/4/2026 at 2:07:07 AM

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

by nine_k

4/4/2026 at 2:56:28 AM

It’s so strange because obviously my people are the good ones and everyone knows that!

by SV_BubbleTime

4/4/2026 at 1:59:15 AM

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

by tayo42

4/4/2026 at 2:08:37 AM

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.

by greedo

4/4/2026 at 2:49:39 AM

Right, so the idea is that right wing policy of cutting support systems is fueling right wing growth. People are dumb, or this is what they want? Both? Lol Seems weird though

by tayo42

4/4/2026 at 3:55:25 AM

The playbook has been to manipulate "low-information voters" by promising that you will attack a marginalized group of people. Get the voters to believe that you are on their side by echoing the fear and hatred they have for The Enemy.

Action against The Enemy replaces any action to directly address economic and social marginalization.

It's how we process information. Avoiding this cognitive glitch takes practice.

by watersb

4/4/2026 at 2:15:13 AM

> 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.

by georgemcbay

4/4/2026 at 2:14:22 AM

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

by Herring

4/4/2026 at 2:23:01 AM

I would be very happy to do so if we had working infrastructure, education, and health care not coupled to the generosity of your employer.

Isn’t it the case anyway that if you add state, federal, local, property, capital gains, and sales taxes, add the money that you and your employer pays for healthcare, that you’re basically paying slightly more in taxes all-in?

by andrewjf

4/4/2026 at 2:29:44 AM

Huh. Most software engineers I come across am at worst ambivalent and at best highly desiring of unions.

by tomrod

4/4/2026 at 3:59:40 AM

What do you think “welfare state” means? Do you think “European-style” salaries solely occur because “European-style” people, for instance, have a different healthcare system?

by jmye

4/4/2026 at 11:55:26 AM

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.

by DiscourseFan

4/4/2026 at 1:09:32 AM

[dead]

by yahway

4/4/2026 at 12:40:26 PM

[flagged]

by JaceDev

4/4/2026 at 2:06:29 PM

[flagged]

by politician

4/4/2026 at 2:17:47 PM

Yea some opinions are just widely shared I guess hn shouldn’t be this political mr … politician

by siwakotisaurav

4/4/2026 at 3:31:49 PM

I have yet to see any statement from the conservative perspective giving any rationale whatsoever to justify restrictions on recording police activity in public spaces. or any of the other erosions of civil liberties. I would personally love to understand why this is necessary. The only opinion expressed here seems to be that immigration is such a existential issue that we don't need to bother with due process or any of that other crap, and the the other side is really just as bad.

I remain deeply confused about efforts to ensure that the 'conversative viewpoint' is fairly expressed in forums like the universities, because there really just doesn't seem to be a meaningful conservative viewpoint at all. global warming is actually happening. vaccines save lives. ICE is acting unconstitutionally. these are just facts. if you want to call them into question loud mouthed assertions just aren't sufficient, show up with some kind of actual argument. wanting to step up immigration enforcement is a totally legitimate policy position. claiming that federal agents don't need to obey the constitution kinda isn't really.

by convolvatron

4/4/2026 at 1:33:55 AM

[flagged]

by charcircuit

4/4/2026 at 1:37:31 AM

> It should be possible to get rid of 99% all illegals in less than 2 years.

The Nazis couldn't even manage it with a smaller population in six years.

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 2:46:07 AM

Technology has advanced a lot since then. We should be able to enforce laws better now than compared to any point in history.

by charcircuit

4/4/2026 at 4:04:14 PM

"It's fine, AI lets us automate the concentration camps!"

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 6:02:04 PM

Even without AI there have been many advances such as video cameras or dna which can be used as evidence to help solve crimes.

This idea that "the nazis had laws so it is bad for us to also have laws" is not going to work on people anymore.

by charcircuit

4/4/2026 at 6:09:43 PM

Yes, and doing that still takes time. Murder trials take years and significant human time. Even parking tickets require several people to show up in a physical location to address if you contest them.

So, you either do the proper, constitutionally required procedure - which takes time - or you take the Nazi approach of... significant shortcuts. And even there, it remains quite labor intensive.

And now, oops… lettuce is $20/head, and the international community is working to send you to The Hague.

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 6:50:04 PM

If the system is overloaded to the point a border trial takes years then there needs to be more investment into the resources needed to speed up the process. Making things slow and inefficient is not an inherent thing that needs to be preserved. This is why original comment suggested scaling up enforcement due to deal with the increased load of essentially clearing out the queue of current things that need to be taken care of as opposed to spreading it out over time.

by charcircuit

4/4/2026 at 6:55:37 PM

> Making things slow and inefficient is not an inherent thing that needs to be preserved.

The opposite, really. Making it slow and inefficient is how we try to prevent life-changing mistakes like "oops we deported a citizen and now they're dead in Tijuana".

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 7:04:52 PM

I would actually expect the opposite. The slower and more inefficient a system is, the higher probability a life changing mistake happens. The more frequent something happens the better a system gets at handling that thing.

Take for example restoring a site from backups. If you never have exercised disaster recovery before you may make some mistake or realize that something that should be backed up isn't. But if you practice disaster recovery quarterly you are much more likely to discover these issues.

by charcircuit

4/4/2026 at 10:19:36 PM

> I would actually expect the opposite.

The people who get exonerated of murder decades later would probalby disagree.

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 10:25:52 PM

If you asked them if they would have wanted to be exonerated after 2 days instead of 2 decades 100% of them would say yes.

by charcircuit

4/5/2026 at 12:15:53 AM

Of course they would prefer to be exonerated after 2 days.

That's not what would happen. Quick justice makes more mistakes, not fewer.

by ceejayoz

4/4/2026 at 12:45:45 AM

[flagged]

by nandomrumber

4/4/2026 at 12:51:23 AM

> 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?

by badlucklottery

4/4/2026 at 1:44:00 AM

Look at the first sentence of their bio. It would be rude of me to offer my opinion on their mental state, is all I'm going to say.

by nixosbestos

4/4/2026 at 7:39:22 PM

I don’t understand.

Are you saying the electricity I use hasn’t increased at a rate 2.6 times faster than general inflation.

Or are you saying that, for example, my low-energy-per-wash washing machine is maintainable despite having a welded drum? Or that my phone does have a user replaceable battery.

by nandomrumber

4/4/2026 at 12:50:08 AM

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

Filming ICE is no longer allowed.

by loloquwowndueo

4/4/2026 at 12:53:45 AM

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."

by Terr_

4/4/2026 at 5:26:24 AM

[flagged]

by JuniperMesos

4/4/2026 at 7:51:05 AM

I had a much longer bit about your factually incorrect framing of the incident with Pretti, but I'll just say that it's really insane that we still have people here on HN that are repeating lies by the state to cover what was clearly an extrajudicial murder. The video evidence cannot be more clear.

by fzeroracer

4/4/2026 at 12:51:07 AM

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.

by calmbonsai

4/4/2026 at 12:58:28 AM

> 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.

by Jtsummers

4/4/2026 at 12:51:57 AM

how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?

by random3

4/4/2026 at 1:03:34 AM

> "how can you tell the difference between anything and anything?"

You can't until the overlord(s) you've delegated all your thinking to tells you what you saw.

by blooalien

4/4/2026 at 2:14:34 AM

Which is amusing, because it’s you lot here literally doing the groupthink.

I guess my comment may have been received better if I framed it in the devils advocate / steel manning context.

by nandomrumber

4/4/2026 at 4:01:22 AM

The Devil doesn't need an advocate, he won the election.

by mindslight

4/4/2026 at 1:07:32 AM

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

by quantified

4/4/2026 at 7:48:50 PM

Isn’t it already prohibited to fly a drone over my head, unless it’s in the sub 250 gram category.

by nandomrumber

4/4/2026 at 8:04:53 PM

I doubt it, how does anyone know where your head is? Anyway, sounds like no new law is needed.

by quantified

4/4/2026 at 10:11:34 PM

Here you go, says it right here:

You must never fly over a person.

And that you need a permit to fly within 30m of people without their consent and within 15m with their consent.

I believe the US regs are the same.

https://www.casa.gov.au/drones/flight-authorisations/flying-...

by nandomrumber

4/4/2026 at 2:59:05 AM

[flagged]

by anonymousiam

4/4/2026 at 3:07:11 AM

First amendment applies to citizens, not just “media organizations”. Serious contradiction between your major advocacy about protecting ICE and your minor hedge to avoid getting ghosted.

by BSOhealth

4/4/2026 at 3:32:10 AM

I'm not taking sides here, but it seems the government might want to soldiers to quarter in my home, search my refrigerator, and seize my lemon pound cake. These anti-slavery protestors have been well-equipped with Constitutional protections and occasionally resistant to infringements. I have no knowledge. Obviously, media corporations should have more rights than human beings for the purposes of explaining why everything is just absolutely fantastic.

by steele

4/4/2026 at 3:45:18 AM

It's pretty amusing seeing someone really trying to do the "I'm just a casual observer here, but.." about this. Like who even is the intended audience for this pitch? Is there some critical analysis here you wanna push to convice people of something? It feels too casual to either be trying to change some minds or reinforce something already entrenched. Its like... nothing. Is this dead internet?

by beepbooptheory

4/4/2026 at 3:15:13 AM

> The anti-ICE protesters have been well organized, well equipped,

Civilians being well organized and well equipped (?) is a problem why?

> and sometimes violent

And yet the videos coming out of the US, of protesters being shot by ICE where non violent.

> for the purposes of collecting intelligence on their targets (who are federal law enforcement agents).

What does "target" mean exactly, I haven't read anything other than doxxing agents, annoying, and verbally harrasing them?

Also, I'd be more wary about the state if things when there's plethora news circulating of US law enforcement buying up all kinds of data for flagging undesirable citizens. More so when Palantir is involved and the developed tech is any authoritarians wet dream.

by mhitza

4/4/2026 at 3:17:17 AM

Everyone gets the first amendment

by valbaca

4/4/2026 at 3:15:56 AM

Nobody is going to give you an award for licking the boot dude.

by Ar-Curunir

4/4/2026 at 1:48:21 AM

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

by nickphx

4/4/2026 at 11:11:59 AM

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

by Bender

4/4/2026 at 10:58:17 AM

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.

by TiredOfLife

4/4/2026 at 11:21:00 AM

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

by macintux

4/4/2026 at 11:34:48 AM

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?

by thfuran

4/4/2026 at 1:35:10 PM

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?

by jmye

4/4/2026 at 1:40:25 PM

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

by contubernio