4 ms·

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 con

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.

smallmancontrov 6mo ago
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.
- youknownothing 6mo ago
  yeah, that too, good point.
- gzread 6mo ago
  We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.
  - my_throwaway23 6mo ago
    Put it in Sweden[0]. At least you'd have de jure source protection. [0]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd
    - Y-bar 6mo ago
      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-media-prosecuted-for-espionage/ https://www.thelocal.se/20171207/new-law-could-see-swedish-m...
      - my_throwaway23 6mo ago
        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.
        Y-bar 6mo ago
        > Note: de jure, not de facto. It always is until it is too late.
- amluto 6mo ago
  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.
  - daveguy 6mo ago
    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)
Braxton1980 6mo ago
> 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"
- ocdtrekkie 6mo ago
  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.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    Felony murder, various conspiracies ...
- dodobirdlord 6mo ago
  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.
light_hue_1 6mo ago
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.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  > 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.
  - sudonem 6mo ago
    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.
    - ultrarunner 6mo ago
novaleaf 6mo ago
> A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted IANAL also, but counterpoint: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...

smallmancontrov 6mo ago

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.

youknownothing 6mo ago
yeah, that too, good point.
gzread 6mo ago
We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.
- my_throwaway23 6mo ago
  Put it in Sweden[0]. At least you'd have de jure source protection. [0]: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Källskydd
  - Y-bar 6mo ago
    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-media-prosecuted-for-espionage/ https://www.thelocal.se/20171207/new-law-could-see-swedish-m...
    - my_throwaway23 6mo ago
      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.
      - Y-bar 6mo ago
        > Note: de jure, not de facto. It always is until it is too late.
amluto 6mo ago
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.
- daveguy 6mo ago
  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)

Braxton1980 6mo ago

> 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"

ocdtrekkie 6mo ago
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.
- watwut 6mo ago
  Felony murder, various conspiracies ...
dodobirdlord 6mo ago
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.

light_hue_1 6mo ago

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.

fc417fc802 6mo ago
> 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.
- sudonem 6mo ago
  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.
  - ultrarunner 6mo ago

novaleaf 6mo ago

> A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted IANAL also, but counterpoint: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...