7 ms·

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

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.

SoftTalker 8mo 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).
- colechristensen 8mo 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 8mo 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?
    - davorak 8mo 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.
    - iamnothere 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
        What’s your point? It’s true.
        lp0_on_fire 8mo 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.
    - mmmlinux 8mo ago
      basically every farmer.
- tim-tday 8mo 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.
- davorak 8mo 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.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.
- baubino 8mo 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 8mo 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".
    - ndjeosibfb 8mo ago
      brass text?
      - HaZeust 8mo ago
        brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.
    - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
      > your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
foogazi 8mo 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 8mo 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)?
  - bhickey 8mo ago
    They wrote a memo saying they could.
    - boston_clone 8mo 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-memo-1-21-26/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
      - esalman 8mo ago
        Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.
        ghthor 8mo 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 8mo ago
        No it doesn't. Conspiracy theorists don't actually do research. If they did, that might risk invalidating their theory.
scotty79 8mo 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.
- psunavy03 8mo 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.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 8mo 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.
    - AngryData 8mo 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 8mo ago
        Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.
SilverElfin 8mo ago
[flagged]
- quantumfissure 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DangitBobby 8mo ago
    People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.
  - mmooss 8mo 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
    - quantumfissure 8mo 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.
OptionOfT 8mo 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.
NedF 8mo ago
[dead]
_DeadFred_ 8mo 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 8mo 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!
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
    There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
- lp0_on_fire 8mo 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.
  - K0balt 8mo ago
ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
> I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc. I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.
NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
>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. The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.

SoftTalker 8mo 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).

colechristensen 8mo 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 8mo 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?
  - davorak 8mo 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.
  - iamnothere 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
        What’s your point? It’s true.
        lp0_on_fire 8mo 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.
  - mmmlinux 8mo ago
    basically every farmer.
tim-tday 8mo 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.
davorak 8mo 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.
direwolf20 8mo ago
ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.
baubino 8mo 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 8mo 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".
  - ndjeosibfb 8mo ago
    brass text?
    - HaZeust 8mo ago
      brass tacks*. That's what I get for generating half of my comment with speech to text.
  - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
    > your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.

foogazi 8mo 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 8mo 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)?
- bhickey 8mo ago
  They wrote a memo saying they could.
  - boston_clone 8mo 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-memo-1-21-26/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
    - esalman 8mo ago
      Some people also need to get in the habit of researching a claim by themselves.
      - ghthor 8mo 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 8mo ago
        No it doesn't. Conspiracy theorists don't actually do research. If they did, that might risk invalidating their theory.

scotty79 8mo 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.

psunavy03 8mo 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.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 8mo 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.
  - AngryData 8mo 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 8mo ago
      Fear makes a lot of well intended people comply.

SilverElfin 8mo ago

[flagged]

quantumfissure 8mo ago
[flagged]
- DangitBobby 8mo ago
  People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.
- mmooss 8mo 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
  - quantumfissure 8mo 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.

OptionOfT 8mo 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.

NedF 8mo ago

[dead]

_DeadFred_ 8mo 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 8mo 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!
- NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
  There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.
lp0_on_fire 8mo 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.
- K0balt 8mo ago

ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago

> I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. People are required to demonstrate a level of skill in order to not hurt and kill other road users too much and there are other considerations as well. I, for one, do not welcome people driving with compromised or no vision, or being subject to occasional loss of control whilst having a seizure etc. I also don't think that it's a good idea to allow a person to continue driving if they've previously used their vehicle as a deliberate weapon.

NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago

>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. The second amendment only protects the right to arms. Firearms certainly, others as well (swords, if anyone gave a shit about them, body armor for sure, perhaps even others not normally considered to fall under its protection like grenades). If the Constitution protects encryption or un-pre-sabotaged vehicles, the 2nd amendment isn't the portion that does so.