To answer your edit, I'd say your framing of those questions is likely considered antagonistic.

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

The issue is that the restrictions were so ambiguous as to make flying drones legally risky anywhere and anytime. The idea that a pilot should somehow know that a specific vehicle is a roving no-fly zone is ludicrous. You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such. That's 100% not the issue. I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one. As far as harassment of ICE agents by drone operators, all existing regulations already cover this and apply equally to a drone operator harassing the general public or government officials. Trying to carve out something special for ICE agents and de-facto making all drone flight a legal gamble is insane.