4 ms·
The title confused me a bit, Illinois isn't prohibiting weapon recognition on drones, it's prohibiting putting weapons on drones. Also, the act doesn't appear
by shipscode 3y ago
The title confused me a bit, Illinois isn't prohibiting weapon recognition on drones, it's prohibiting putting weapons on drones.
Also, the act doesn't appear to have any legal consequences, so I wonder if it actually holds any teeth.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago> The title confused me a bit, Illinois isn't prohibiting weapon recognition on drones, it's prohibiting putting weapons on drones. This is normal title style for a news headline and has been for a very long time; the comma here is short for "and".
- piperswe 3y ago"weapons" should be missing the "s" to reduce ambiguity in that case. Right now it reads like (weapons) and (facial recognition). "weapons recognition" doesn't quite sound right to me.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y ago> Right now it reads like (weapons) and (facial recognition). That's because that is what it says. The parent comment's confusion was due to both parsing the comma as a list separator instead of a conjunction as well as not recognizing the implication of the "s" at the end of "weapons".
- piperswe 3y agoOh. Ignore me then, I'm just misinterpreting everything.
- LadyCailin 3y agoIf they did, then you could successfully sue them for an injunction. Further use would then be contempt of court, a separate crime. Further, any evidence derived from that would be inadmissible in any proceedings.