I understand that you don't like the proposal, but are you addressing the narrow point that I was arguing, or a broader objection to the provisions to take action?
Just to clarify, the point I was discussing was the issue of government liability. The clause in questions is:
(f) JURISDICTION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim, including for money damages, against a covered person arising from any authorized action described in subsection (b).
Note that is says "against a covered person" not against the agency. The discussion section following the proposal attempts to explain this section:
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are commercially available, challenging to detect and mitigate, and capable of carrying harmful payloads and performing surveillance while evading traditional ground security measures. However, some of the most promising technical countermeasures for detecting and mitigating UAS may be construed to be illegal under certain laws that were passed when UAS were unforeseen. These laws include statutes governing electronic communications, access to protected computers, and interference with civil aircraft.
....
Subsection (a) sets forth the savings clause discussed above. Though many provisions in Title 18 may conflict with authorized Counter-UAS activities, certain statutes are especially problematic. For example, sections 2510–2522 of title 18, United States Code (the Wiretap Act), among other things, subject any person who intentionally intercepts the “contents” of electronic communications to fines, imprisonment, and/or civil liability, and sections 3121–3127 of title 18, United States Code (the Pen/Trap Statute), among other things, generally prohibit the installation or use of a device to collect “non-content” information of electronic communications. In addition, section 1030 of title 18, United States Code (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) prohibits unauthorized access to and use of “protected computers.” These statutes might be construed to prohibit access to or interception of the telemetry, signaling information, or other communications of UAS. Furthermore, any attempt to interfere with the flight of UAS that pose a threat to covered facilities, locations and installations or covered operations may conflict with section 32 of title 18, United States Code (the Aircraft Sabotage Act), which among other things, imposes fines and criminal penalties on anyone who “damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” In the event of unanticipated conflicts with other statutes, and in order to avoid criminalizing critically important activities by government officials that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, the savings clause also refers generally to “any provision of title 18, United States Code.” Congress has previously recognized the importance of ensuring that federal criminal laws in Title 18 do not inadvertently blunt the development or use of UAS countermeasures. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 contains two sections (Sec. 1697—codified at section 130i of title 10, U.S. Code—and Sec. 3112) authorizing the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy, respectively, to protect certain facilities and assets from threats posed by UAS. Both sections authorize such activities “[n]otwithstanding any provision of title 18.”
...
Subsection (f) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to hear causes or claims, including for money damages, against a federal officer, employee, agent or contractor arising from any authorized actions described in subsections (b). This provision serves to protect individuals taking authorized actions described in subsections (b) from damages claims and official-capacity claims.
