[lsaferite]

To answer your edit, I'd say your framing of those questions is likely considered antagonistic.

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

The issue is that the restrictions were so ambiguous as to make flying drones legally risky anywhere and anytime. The idea that a pilot should somehow know that a specific vehicle is a roving no-fly zone is ludicrous. You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such. That's 100% not the issue. I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one. As far as harassment of ICE agents by drone operators, all existing regulations already cover this and apply equally to a drone operator harassing the general public or government officials. Trying to carve out something special for ICE agents and de-facto making all drone flight a legal gamble is insane.

[zahlman]

> No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents

Look, I agree that this is a poorly implemented policy. But it's obvious and inarguable that the clear intent is to prevent people from following ICE around with drones, whether to surveil them (and thus perhaps warn others of their approach; despite the fact that there is no logical reason for anyone to be concerned about their approach beyond actual law breakers who legally should not be in the country) or harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone).

> Government officials should be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.

Sure. Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not; in particular they are specifically entrusted with the use of force that would almost never be accepted from civilians.

> Their objective was to prevent legally permitted public recording of these operations

No, there is no such objective, because even if enforced as described this is laughably far from actually doing any such thing.

In particular, you can still record from the ground. And if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.

Again, this is about flying drones, and people are crying literal fascism over it. This is technology that didn't exist when the actual Fascists were in power, and is still only feasibly accessible to a privileged few.

> You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such.

No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles, and people who are mistakenly identified as such may suffer as a result. And that it is therefore better that they don't have the idea in their heads that it should be morally okay to harass law enforcement officers, or to try to create an information network to obstruct lawful work.

The recurring pattern with all of these things people complain about with how ICE operates, that I've noticed, is that every single one of them is a response to how they've been unlawfully interfered with previously.

> Given that many people in that status are guilty of civil infractions

If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.

This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country. To allow this is to deny the nation's right to determine who is and is not allowed to stay. It is, in fact, definitionally "open borders" policy. And with this you do not have a nation any more, only lines on a map.

> the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate

This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.

Similarly, any law enforcement officer may (from what I have had to research over the last several months; these things are not that much different from Canada, frankly) legally order you out of a vehicle on "reasonable suspicion"; and citizens are legally not entitled to interpose themselves physically between a law enforcement officer and the target with the purpose of interfering with law enforcement action (or persist in doing so after being advise that they are in the way). The fact that said citizen is recording with a cell phone at the time does not change that, any more than shouting political slogans during a hold-up would exonerate a bank robber.

If you interfere in such a manner, you thereby commit a crime in full sight of an officer, and are therefore a valid candidate for arrest. And resisting arrest generally justifies physical force, no matter how bad it might look on a citizen's cell phone recording. (Activists specifically train to resist arrest in ways that make the response look bad, despite being completely legally justified, and always having been completely legally justified, in many other countries as well as the US.)

> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.

Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.

[lsaferite]

> obvious and inarguable that the clear intent is to prevent people from following ICE around with drones

Exactly. They desire to prevent their actions from being observed and recorded. They cannot exert physical restraint over a drone like they can a person on the ground. That means they lose the ability to restrict you from recording their activities.

> harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone)

As I stated before, there are already laws to cover this situation. No need for the hidden, roving, no-fly zones.

> Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not

You and I disagree here. Law enforcement should be held to higher legal standards in everything they do BECAUSE they are "entrusted with the use of force". That put's them in a position of authority over anyone who isn't entrusted with the same governmental power. They should not be afforded extra legal protections, they should have extra legal obligations. I'm not talking about regulations around scene control for public safety.

> No, there is no such objective

This is either a naive or malicious take. I'll be generous and assume it's naive. They don't want people to surveil them. If you are an individual on the ground you likely are within the "reach out and touch them" space and they absolutely will suppress you if you are in a position to record, in detail, their activities. There are plenty of recorded interactions of just this thing happening. A drone operator can be in a stand-off location recording and less likely to have then physically interrupt the recording. That drone operator has legal restrictions on what they can do and violating those restrictions is already legally enforceable, no hidden, roving, no-fly zone needed.

> if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.

This is, again, a naive take. They will obstruct your ability to record their activities as much as possible. On the ground that means they can simply stand between you and what they rest of their group are doing. Or quite likely they will physically harass you until your recording is stopped in one way or another. Recording from the air makes in much harder for them to obstruct your recording. With ground or air you still have to contend with non-purposeful obstructed angles of observation, with air you have less chance of purposeful obstructions.

> No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles

As with any group you will always have multiple, sometimes opposing, motivations. I'm positive you can find people who just want to chase around ICE vehicles (or presumed ICE vehicles). But you are using a (smaller) portion of people that are rule breakers already as a rationalization for severe government overreach. And they you are decrying people calling that behavior "fascist" as being out of touch because... drones didn't exist when the term fascist came into use?

What a large chunk of the general populous wants is accountability, proportionality, civility, and respect (for humanity). The tools they have to attempt to forward that agenda are limited as the government has a legal monopoly on use of force. Observation and recording of activities to ensure the government isn't acting improperly, or document when they are, is one of the few tools available. For government agents to do everything in their power to take away that tool is a clear indicator that they are being improper and don't want evidence of that behavior.

> If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.

This is a mischaracterization of reality. You can legally entry the country and then have that legal authorization revoked. Being in the country from that point is a civil matter, not criminal. Illegally crossing the border is a criminal matter. The current government makes zero distinction in the level of force used in either matter. Being in the United States illegally doesn't absolve the government from respecting your legal rights as those aren't just for citizens and legal residents. Simple violation of the law does not excuse the excessive force being used here.

> This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country.

I actually don't disagree. I'm not an advocate for people illegally residing in the United States. I also happen to think that people residing here illegally are subject to the saw protections of law as everyone living here legally. I think they are entitled to basic human dignity. I think they deserve proportional legal enforcement of our immigration laws. I would include compassion, but a government doesn't really mesh with the idea of compassion, that more for the populous or individuals to extend towards their fellow humans.

> This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.

The level of force being applied is in no way proportionate to situation. These are people living here without legal authority and running away from raids. These are not criminal gangs attacking law enforcement. Those ICE officers are individuals exerting legally authorized deadly force against unarmed suspects at an alarming rate. By your logic, the only proper response would be for the oppressed to escalate.

Again, you are missing that the response from officers is disproportionate to the crime. Unless perhaps the "crime" was disrespecting their authority and they seek to teach you the consequences. Shooting someone because you decided to throw yourself in front of their moving car is not a proportionate response to a unarmed, non-violent person trying to get away from an armed and belligerent cluster of government officials.

>> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.

> Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.

You mis-quoted me. I was referring to identification of ICE vehicles. My implication was that having a group of supposed law enforcement who refuse to identify their vehicles, refuse to wear uniforms, wear full face masks, and refuse to properly identify themselves seems like a great way to provoke bad outcomes. It had nothing, directly, to do with discussing "level of force". We were discussing drones and the governments heavy-hands reaction to drones being used against them (they already use them against anyone they deem a target).

It's obvious that you and I have very differing opinions of how a citizen-authorized government should be applying it's legal monopoly on the use of force.

1/3 of this country is quite happy with the level of brutality and malice on display and for that they should be ashamed. Another 1/3 of this country couldn't be bothered to even vote and for that they should be equally, if not more, ashamed.

My personal politics are generally not something I discuss much but perhaps it deserves qualifying here. I think the two major parties in this country are both mostly morally corrupt. They have lost their way and no longer attempt to represent the interests of the populous. Things will never get better with things the way they are as both major parties are fully captured by monied interests. I generally want the government to stay out of my life and simply provide for the common defense, provide shared infrastructure and services, and provide a social safety net for it's citizens. I don't support violence except in self-defense. I think people should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies. I don't personally care about your race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or any other label we use to segment people into the ins and the outs. We are all people and we should all respect each others right to self-determination. I think we all have an obligation to each other to preserve Earth as it's our shared home. Anyway, I guess I'm trying to head off the "typical Democrat" or "typical Liberal" counter. I'm neither of those things. But, if we ever took time to actually communicate with one another, we'd see that everyone has nuance and applying labels hides that.