38 ms·
Well, I'm not sure why you're bringing up their legality. Are you talking about the Geneva Conventions? with respect to the blinding lights?
by lainga 8y ago
Well, I'm not sure why you're bringing up their legality. Are you talking about the Geneva Conventions? with respect to the blinding lights?
- Tronno 8y agoHe is ironically quoting the POTUS: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/very-legal-and-very-cool https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/very-legal-and-very-cool
- lainga 8y agoWell, please, don't do that, or assume bad faith, it's counter-guidelines. On the actual topic at hand, even assuming this technology finds its way into the hands of police forces (racism or not), what's the use case? People hiding in sewers and drainage pipes? Natural cave systems? Underground mall networks in urban environments? The item with the most potential for invasion of privacy in the article is the ground-penetrating radar (when pointed sideways at houses), but that has already been around for a few years, and there is both literature and case law on police using radar in that capacity.
- shove 8y agoIt’ll be used to clear homeless out of underground / tight urban spaces just for starters
- shove 8y agoThere’s also the matter of police militarization being an end run around constitutional protections re: domestically deployed armed forces. I’m not arguing in bad faith. I’m offering a legitimate (if unpopular) critique.