4 ms·
> With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people How do you arrive at that conclusion? The language of the bill specifically e
by scoot 14y ago
> With the specific prohibitions on photographs of residences that include people
How do you arrive at that conclusion? The language of the bill specifically excludes from prohibition images not containing "forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects" (emphasis mine) - yet the
writer of the article came to the same conclusion you have:
..."possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable."
What am I missing?
- JoshTriplett 14y agoOuch, I hadn't quite parsed it that way. If the residence itself counts, which in hindsight it probably does, then that does seem like a problem.