unstyledcontent
7 hours ago
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.
foogazi
7 hours ago
> 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
7 hours ago
>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
7 hours ago
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.
bhickey
7 hours ago
They wrote a memo saying they could.
boston_clone
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.
ghthor
3 hours ago
Pretty sure doing your own research turns you into a conspiracy theorist; so I don’t think we’re supposed to do that anymore.
krapp
3 hours ago
No it doesn't. Conspiracy theorists don't actually do research. If they did, that might risk invalidating their theory.
AnimalMuppet
3 hours ago
At least some conspiracy theorists do selective research.
antisthenes
2 hours ago
Selective research is an oxymoron.
The word for it is cherry-picking and it is better classified as a fallacy.
IAmBroom
5 hours ago
Your claim is not a source, so downvoted.
The people who replied to you provided the source: upvoted them.
baby_souffle
7 hours ago
> 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
an hour ago
And, to be clear, an administrative warrant IS NOT A WARRANT. It's essentially a memo.
foogazi
5 hours ago
Source for the exigent circumstances exemption ?
mmooss
6 hours ago
OptionOfT
6 hours ago
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.
SoftTalker
7 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
> 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
an hour ago
> 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
an hour ago
"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".
direwolf20
3 hours ago
ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.
colechristensen
7 hours ago
>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
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
Compare the numbers of farmers and ranchers to the rest of the population.
How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?
iamnothere
5 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
What’s your point? It’s true.
lp0_on_fire
an hour ago
It’s true in the same way that it’s technically true anyone* can buy a football team.
* anyone with a few hundred million in the bank.
B1FIDO
an hour ago
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
6 hours ago
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_
4 hours ago
I do! I call it my “driveway.”
Related: 20 days until the Daytona 500!
mmmlinux
5 hours ago
basically every farmer.
lp0_on_fire
an hour ago
So is the argument that only farmers should be able to have a vehicle?
tim-tday
7 hours ago
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.
_DeadFred_
4 hours ago
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
an hour ago
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!
lp0_on_fire
42 minutes ago
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.
SilverElfin
7 hours ago
I absolutely think this is going to be a problem. This is a government that does not believe in the constitution. They are pushing the Ten Commandments in Texas and Louisiana schools, encouraging ICE agents to perform warrantless home invasions, and arresting US Citizens or their kids in below freezing temperatures. They will go much further than we imagined, well beyond what even China does to control their population. All power must be stripped from them.
quantumfissure
6 hours ago
You obviously are not very old or know a lot about US history. You should read up, nothing what you mention is new.
>They are pushing the Ten Commandments in Texas and Louisiana schools
10 Commandments and religion in schools has been a battle since the beginning of the public school era. It was a huge deal specifically in the 1920's; 60's; and the 90's and 2000's. This is nothing new. >ICE agents to perform warrantless home invasions, and arresting US Citizens or their kids in below freezing temperatures
Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez from 2000. One of the most famous examples >This is a government that does not believe in the constitution.
I can't wait until you read the part about the PATRIOT Act, renewed consistently by both parties and supported by all three branches of Government. Also plate readers and tracking put in by the Obama administration. Expansion of Border Patrol by the same administration.nilamo
6 hours ago
Just because we were a bad country in the past, does not mean we should continue to be a bad one today.
singleshot_
4 hours ago
> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez from 2000. One of the most famous examples
A brief fact check: Elián González was and is not a US citizen, nor was he the child of US citizens, nor was he arrested by ICE, nor was the raid that resulted in his capture performed without a warrant.
I might wait to hear about him until I encounter someone with more accurate information.
DangitBobby
6 hours ago
People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.
mmooss
6 hours ago
Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior?
> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez
Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation.
It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father.
I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
quantumfissure
6 hours ago
> Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior?
No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power.
> I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
While I agree, the point is the methods are the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly.
I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.
singleshot_
2 hours ago
> INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly.
INS does not exist. While an agency may be exempt from (some) warrants, it is an undisputed fact that the raid that resulted in the capture of Elián González included a valid search warrant.
lp0_on_fire
38 minutes ago
You’re being pedantic. INS was rolled into the homeland security umbrella in the early 2003s. The poster was obviously using an old name.
IAmBroom
5 hours ago
"BSAB" Fallacy detected.
NedF
4 hours ago
[dead]
scotty79
7 hours ago
> 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
6 hours ago
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
4 hours ago
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
an hour ago
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.
psunavy03
7 hours ago
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
5 hours ago
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.
user
7 hours ago
scotty79
7 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
What makes you think the army will go along with it? Sure some will, but expect many soldiers will rebel.
bdangubic
an hour ago
0 of them will “rebel”
_DeadFred_
3 hours ago
The Navy is currently blowing up random boats in the Caribbean (including double taps on survivors) because reasons.
mrguyorama
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
Army goes along with anyone that ensures continual financing of the army. Review history of any putsch ever.
user
5 hours ago
AngryData
7 hours ago
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.
tartoran
6 hours ago
Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.
scotty79
6 hours ago
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
3 hours ago
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.
scotty79
2 hours ago
> They have the consent - or at least acquiescence - of the governed.
They don't have the consent. And all they needed to get acquiescence was a bunch of poorly trained goons with masks, weapons, suv-s and official mandate. Not a single tank was needed yet.
Consent is irrelevant.
The only saving grace is that actual people with tanks (ie military) might at some point say 'nah'. Which I think they did in case of Greenland. Simply because it was too weird for them as opposed to Venezuela and Iran.
direwolf20
35 minutes ago
GP is implying if you aren't committing terrorism, you support the regime. Which is... certainly an opinion.
AngryData
6 hours ago
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.
scotty79
2 hours ago
You can't imagine 95% of the nation operating as normal when they see in the news that another armed domestic terrorist cell got bombed every few days while being told the country is safer now?
nilamo
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
Jan 6th worked, and they didn't even successfully take and hold the Capitol.
dttze
6 hours ago
[dead]