[unstyledcontent]

Here in Minneapolis, there have been multiple anecdotal reports of ICE being able to remotely unlock cars, disable them, and even open windows. Whether its true, its certainly seems possible.

Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.

Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that.

I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.

[OptionOfT]

Remote unlock is on many cars via an API.

It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc.

It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.

[foogazi]

> Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power.

ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant

So we’re beyond concern now

[gruez]

>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant

Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

[kemayo]

Here's a representative news article about it (WaPo because they were first in the search results): https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/22/ice-me... (paywall-avoiding: https://archive.is/bsdv9)

They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.

Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.

[mmooss]

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

[bhickey]

They wrote a memo saying they could.

[boston_clone]

not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...

[esalman]

Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.

[ghthor]

Pretty sure doing your own research turns you into a conspiracy theorist; so I don’t think we’re supposed to do that anymore.

[IAmBroom]

Your claim is not a source, so downvoted.

The people who replied to you provided the source: upvoted them.

[xtiansimon]

Just watched this yesterday, YouTube LegalEagles: “Unbelievable ICE Memo Just Leaked”

https://youtu.be/MGr-yWEu0hc

[baby_souffle]

> Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc

The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant

[Tadpole9181]

And, to be clear, an administrative warrant IS NOT A WARRANT. It's essentially a memo.

[foogazi]

Source for the exigent circumstances exemption ?

[gruez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.

The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.

[_DeadFred_]

The government will soon be able to geofence areas to keep vehicles out of. Wonder if you will get a warning as you get close or if they will just cut out.

"Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"

[B1FIDO]

One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops.

I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?

Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.

So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.

[lp0_on_fire]

That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.

[K0balt]

It only works Like that because fences are hard to build at 5000 Feet. Remote disabling vehicles is a very different thing.

[SoftTalker]

Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.

It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

[davorak]

> Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.

Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.

Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.

[baubino]

> It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle.

You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.

[HaZeust]

"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.

When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".

[bigbadfeline]

> your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions.

The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified.

The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.

[ndjeosibfb]

brass text?

[HaZeust]

brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.

[colechristensen]

>It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.

[lp0_on_fire]

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument

Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

[iamnothere]

It’s pretty common to have unlicensed off road vehicles, especially in the mountain west. Farmers and ranchers often have at least one of these. There’s plenty of recreational users as well.

[lp0_on_fire]

Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population.

How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?

[iamnothere]

That doesn’t mean that this isn’t true in a technical sense. It’s correct that it isn’t feasible for the majority of the population.

You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.

[nkrisc]

What’s your point? It’s true.

[B1FIDO]

It seems like a moot point --

If you are driving off-road, or completely on private property, you're not really driving the vehicle to "go somewhere" or commute or transport people/goods.

It isn't really feasible to use a vehicle for actual transportation without using public roads, at least in these United States.

So what possible cause or reason would any law enforcement have, for going into a vehicle like that and searching it? I mean, compared to someone driving on a public road and "going somewhere" while "carrying stuff" in there? Nearly none, right?

[davorak]

Farmers who own their farm is the traditional group that would qualify. That population is much smaller than it used to be to my understanding though.

[singleshot_]

I do! I call it my “driveway.”

Related: 20 days until the Daytona 500!

[mmmlinux]

basically every farmer.

[lp0_on_fire]

So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?

[direwolf20]

ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.

[tim-tday]

Having vehicle override would be an extremely concerning capability. (If confirmed)

Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc.

I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.

[scotty79]

> if we allow our government

This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that.

Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy.

I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.

[Ancapistani]

You underestimate both the capacity of an armed citizenry and the hardware that we have at our disposal.

There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.

[larkost]

This is misleading. While there are privately owned tanks, they are all old, and lack any weapons (other than as a battering ram).

They likely could cause a lot of trouble for a local police force, but would not stand up to any infantry force in the world.

So in an actual conflict with the U.S. government, none of those tanks would be more than symbolic. And whole a general gorilla insurrection in the U.S. would be nasty, examples like Wako demonstrate that even mid-sized stands would be severely overwhelmed.

The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.

[Ancapistani]

It is misleading, but not for the reasons you state.

There are private tanks in the US with functional weapons, including both mounted MGs and the cannon. In fact, there’s a place in Uvalde, TX that will let you come drive and shoot theirs for a couple grand.

> none of those tanks would be more than symbolic

Correct, but that’s not why. A tank would be worse than useless in an insurgency.

> The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.

No one is seriously suggesting going up against the US military with an irregular force in the US. The point is that an armed citizenry cannot be subjugated without destroying everything worth having. It’s a suicide pact between the People and the state.

[seanmcdirmid]

I thought the point of an armed citizenry is so that they could shoot at each other as both sides think the other has gone bad. Let’s face it, even right now it isn’t the people unified for or against the government, it’s roughly two groups of people that hate each other, one side has control of the federal government, the other side has control of some local and state governments, either side sees the other as tyrannical, and it’s just luck that they haven’t started shooting at each other yet.

This idea that citizens would somehow unite against a tyrannical government has always been a fantasy, even during the revolutionary war.

[psunavy03]

Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington.

Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.

[Hasz]

The US has lost multiple wars to goat herders in pickup trucks with small arms.

As Ukraine has demonstrated, a shaped charge and consumer drone is highly effective against even heavy mechanized armor. ERA doesn't work well for multiple hits, and drones and HMX/RDX are cheap.

[scotty79]

Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.

[bluGill]

What makes you think the army will go along with it? Sure some will, but expect many soldiers will rebel.

[_DeadFred_]

The Navy is currently blowing up random boats in the Caribbean (including double taps on survivors) because reasons.

[ben_w]

Sure, and from what I hear that's at the level of "war crimes", but those civilians the US armed forces are killing aren't US civilians.

People sign up for a variety of reasons; to keep their own safe is one of them, and that reason is incompatible with being the aggressor in a civil war.

[mrguyorama]

They went along with Iraq despite knowing it was a lie.

"We knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction when we rolled up and didn't immediately get gassed"

[scotty79]

Army goes along with anyone that ensures continual financing of the army. Review history of any putsch ever.

[ben_w]

The current US administration is not competent to ensure continual financing in real terms.

If the White House keeps up current threats against allies it may find nobody willing to lend them money, and therefore the government will be forced to inflate its way to balancing the books each year; if they follow through with kicking out the undocumented migrant workers (even if they improve their current behaviour and limit themselves to *only* undocumented migrant workers), they mess up US agriculture at the same time; there is also visible corruption and self-dealing within the government.

The question is the level, rather than the existence of these factors.

There's been another authoritarian in my lifetime who messed with farms by actually kicking out non-native people in the way Trump threatens, demonstrating even worse corruption, and that actually did try to fund the government with inflation rather than my hypothetical of "will be forced to": Mugabe. It didn't go well for Zimbabwe, and the US military can observe what happened there and decide if that's what they want to see in the US.

[bdangubic]

0 of them will “rebel”

[AngryData]

You really think the US government can bomb its own citizens with impunity and not completely destroy their own industrial base that makes bombing citizens possible? The US government would very quickly collapse.

Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.

[scotty79]

At the moment the government with 15% hardcore support is rounding up people on the streets en masse, violating decades of established practices, while harming industrial base that depend on work of those people. And somehow pretty much everyone peacefully goes along with it. Or get occasionally shot.

[amenhotep]

That is exactly the point. It's working because everyone is peacefully going along with it. They have the consent - or at least acquiescence - of the governed. That's why they have no issues.

It is, therefore, not remotely relevant to your post starting this whole thread off saying that the consent of the governed is irrelevant and all you need is tanks.

[AngryData]

And? Minnesota is under strike right now and Arizona's AG just told its citizens that they can legally shoot ICE if they don't properly identify themselves or have a warrant or legal cause to arrest them. Still 95% of the nation is operating as normal, but that isn't possible when people are being actively bombed.

[tartoran]

Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.

[nilamo]

The US government has made it pretty clear that we're two countries. There's the USA, and "democratic-controlled cesspools". Dropping a bomb on Chicago isn't that nuts when you don't think of Chicago as part of your country.

[pjc50]

Jan 6th worked, and they didn't even successfully take and hold the Capitol.