Drone pilot makes US rescind no-fly zones around unmarked, moving ICE vehicles

无人机飞手促使美国撤销针对无标记、移动中移民及海关执法局（ICE）车辆的禁飞区

In January 2026, during the height of protests against immigration raids in Minneapolis, federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good. Before even gathering all the facts, the Department of Homeland Security labeled the mother of three an “anti-ICE rioter” who “weaponized her vehicle against law enforcement” in an “act of domestic terrorism.” 2026年1月，在明尼阿波利斯市针对移民突袭的抗议活动达到高潮时，联邦特工开枪打死了37岁的蕾妮·古德（Renee Good）。在事实尚未查清之前，国土安全部就将这位三个孩子的母亲贴上了“反ICE暴徒”的标签，称其在“国内恐怖主义行为”中“将车辆武器化以对抗执法人员”。

Days later, the feds announced a major expansion of “no-fly zones” in the name of national security. While such no-fly zones used to be about controlling aircraft, they now often focus on small drones. The expanded no-fly zones announced on January 16 prohibited such drones from flying within 3,000 lateral feet and 1,000 vertical feet of federal facilities. 几天后，联邦政府以国家安全为名，宣布大幅扩大“禁飞区”。虽然此类禁飞区过去主要用于管制飞机，但现在往往侧重于小型无人机。1月16日宣布的扩大禁飞区规定，禁止此类无人机在联邦设施周围水平3000英尺、垂直1000英尺的范围内飞行。

But for the first time, the order extended no-fly zones to ground vehicles belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Even while the vehicles were in motion. Even if they were unmarked. And even if their routes had not been announced. This exceptionally ambiguous policy posed real danger to people like Rob Levine, a freelance photojournalist and commercial photographer in Minneapolis for nearly four decades. 但该命令首次将禁飞区扩展到了国土安全部的地面车辆。即使车辆在行驶中，即使车辆没有标记，即使其路线未曾公布，禁飞区依然有效。这项极其模糊的政策对罗布·莱文（Rob Levine）这样的人构成了真正的危险，他是一位在明尼阿波利斯工作了近四十年的自由摄影记者和商业摄影师。

Since Levine got his remote-pilot certification and bought his first drone in 2016, he has flown a small fleet of DJI quadcopter drones to take aerial photographs and videos of Minnesota’s rivers, bridges, and cities, along with crowds gathered for outdoor concerts and parades. More recently, he has documented Twin City residents protesting the increased presence of federal agents in their community. 自2016年莱文获得远程飞行员证书并购买了第一架无人机以来，他一直驾驶着一支小型大疆（DJI）四轴无人机编队，拍摄明尼苏达州的河流、桥梁和城市，以及户外音乐会和游行的人群。最近，他一直在记录双子城居民抗议联邦特工在社区内活动增加的情况。

Levine immediately stopped flying when he saw the no-fly notice. The notice said government agencies could shoot down or seize drones “deemed to pose a credible safety or security threat,” and it warned of civil and even criminal penalties for drone operators. 莱文在看到禁飞通知后立即停止了飞行。通知称，政府机构可以击落或扣押“被认为构成可信安全威胁”的无人机，并警告无人机操作员可能面临民事甚至刑事处罚。

“I saw what these federal agents were willing to do, the violence they were willing to visit upon even constitutional observers here in the Twin Cities who were just photographing what they were doing,” Levine told Ars. Good’s killing had occurred just six blocks from his home. “It didn’t take much imagination to think what they would do to somebody with a drone, and so for weeks I didn’t go fly,” he said. “我看到了这些联邦特工愿意做什么，他们甚至对双子城这里仅仅是在拍摄他们行为的宪法观察员施加暴力，”莱文告诉《Ars Technica》。古德被杀的地点距离他家仅六个街区。“不需要太多的想象力就能想到他们会对操作无人机的人做什么，所以几周来我都没有去飞行，”他说。

A week after the no-fly zone warning, the situation in Minneapolis escalated further when Customs and Border Protection officers killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, after wrestling him to the ground and shooting him multiple times. Levine wanted his drones back in the air. But when he sought guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency candidly acknowledged that the no-fly zone warning was “ambiguous” and “therefore, any flight carries the risk of inadvertent violation.” Could such a policy possibly be legal? 禁飞区警告发布一周后，明尼阿波利斯局势进一步升级：海关及边境保卫局官员在将37岁的重症监护护士亚历克斯·普雷蒂（Alex Pretti）按倒在地并多次开枪后将其打死。莱文希望他的无人机能重新升空。但当他向联邦航空管理局（FAA）寻求指导时，该机构坦率地承认，禁飞区警告是“模糊的”，“因此，任何飞行都存在无意违规的风险。”这样的政策可能合法吗？

Hidden no-fly zones: The FAA had previously only advised that drone pilots avoid flying near “mobile assets” operated by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, such as naval warships and truck convoys transporting nuclear materials between US national labs. But the “notice to airmen” alert in January—NOTAM FDC 6/4375—had created the equivalent of roving, 3,000-foot no-fly zones around federal agents’ cars and other vehicles operating in cities and towns across the country. 隐藏的禁飞区：FAA此前仅建议无人机飞行员避免在国防部和能源部运营的“移动资产”附近飞行，例如海军军舰和在各国家实验室之间运输核材料的卡车车队。但1月份发布的“飞行员通知”（NOTAM FDC 6/4375）相当于在全国各城镇运行的联邦特工车辆和其他车辆周围，创建了移动的、半径3000英尺的禁飞区。

And it didn’t just affect those trying to film federal agents. Because it was practically impossible to ensure compliance with the new flight restrictions, any drone pilot could be at risk during any flight. “It created a whole lot of fear in the community,” said Vic Moss, CEO and cofounder of the Drone Service Providers Alliance, a drone industry trade association based in Lakewood, Colorado. 这不仅影响了那些试图拍摄联邦特工的人。由于实际上不可能确保遵守新的飞行限制，任何无人机飞行员在任何飞行过程中都可能面临风险。“这在社区中造成了极大的恐惧，”位于科罗拉多州莱克伍德的无人机行业贸易协会——无人机服务提供商联盟（Drone Service Providers Alliance）的首席执行官兼联合创始人维克·莫斯（Vic Moss）表示。

In a post on March 11, Moss described the FAA flight restriction as posing an “impossible compliance problem” for drone operators, who could end up “ensnared inside a restricted zone with no way of knowing it.” 在3月11日的一篇文章中，莫斯将FAA的飞行限制描述为给无人机操作员带来了“不可能的合规问题”，他们最终可能“在不知情的情况下陷入禁飞区”。

Drone pilots in the United States must use apps such as Air Control to seek official permission to fly in controlled airspaces. Any drones larger than 0.55 pounds must be registered with the FAA and have a Remote ID module that can “squawk” the drone’s identification and location at all times. That makes it easy for federal agents or authorities to see where drone operations are taking place. But the system provided no way for drone operators to avoid unmarked government vehicles in motion. 美国的无人机飞行员必须使用Air Control等应用程序申请在受控空域飞行的官方许可。任何超过0.55磅的无人机都必须在FAA注册，并配备一个能够随时“广播”无人机身份和位置的远程识别（Remote ID）模块。这使得联邦特工或当局可以轻松查看无人机作业的位置。但该系统没有为无人机操作员提供避开移动中无标记政府车辆的方法。

The no-fly zone restrictions were also exceptional in their length and scope. The FAA regularly issues temporary flight restrictions during natural disasters or to protect the airspace around government officials and sporting events such as professional baseball or football games. Most restrictions last just hours or days and cover specific geographic locations, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But the restrictions issued on January 16, 2026, would last until October 29, 2027—21 months—while covering many federal facilities and vehicles across the entire United States. 禁飞区限制在持续时间和范围上也非同寻常。据电子前沿基金会（Electronic Frontier Foundation）称，FAA通常在自然灾害期间，或为保护政府官员及职业棒球或橄榄球比赛等体育赛事周围的空域发布临时飞行限制。大多数限制仅持续数小时或数天，且覆盖特定的地理位置。但2026年1月16日发布的限制措施将持续到2027年10月29日，长达21个月，且覆盖了全美范围内的许多联邦设施和车辆。

Pushing back: Given these unprecedented restrictions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation joined other members of the News Media Coalition—an international organization that includes more than 50 news organizations—in sending a letter to the FAA’s Office of the Chief Counsel. The letter detailed “significant concerns regarding the FAA’s January 16, 2026 sweeping and unprecedented Temporary Flight Restriction.” It described the flight restrictions as violating the First Amendment by making it more difficult to record law enforcement officers. The letter also argued that the policy’s ambiguity violated the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process before being deprived of liberty or property by the government. 反击：鉴于这些前所未有的限制，电子前沿基金会联合新闻媒体联盟（News Media Coalition，一个包含50多家新闻机构的国际组织）的其他成员，向FAA首席法律顾问办公室发送了一封信函。信中详细说明了“对FAA 2026年1月16日发布的大范围且前所未有的临时飞行限制的重大关切”。信中指出，这些飞行限制使得记录执法人员变得更加困难，从而违反了美国宪法第一修正案。信中还辩称，该政策的模糊性违反了美国宪法第五修正案，该修正案保障了在被政府剥夺自由或财产之前享有正当程序的权利。

Back in Minnesota, Levine spent weeks looking for lawyers who could help him challenge the FAA flight restriction as a freelance photojournalist—but he was… 回到明尼苏达州，莱文花了数周时间寻找律师，希望能以自由摄影记者的身份帮助他挑战FAA的飞行限制——但他……