[flagged]
Literally, none of this is true.
Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
21–30 of 265 posts
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#22The 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.
> 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".
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#23[flagged]
> Now they can't carry weapons.
Is this accurate? I haven’t read the full text of the law but I thought it meant no weaponized drones.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#24[flagged]
You should go look at the ratio between administrative costs and actual beat cop salaries. The rising cost of college and the rising cost of law enforcement/defense suffers from a similar decay of middle men leaches just creating fees.
Also as a note, theres not a lot of correlation between an increase and violence and reduced weapons policy, its almost driven by some secondary macro trend.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#25[flagged]
> Now they can't carry weapons. Is this accurate? I haven’t read the full text of the law but I thought it meant no weaponized drones.
> I thought it meant no weaponized drones.
That is correct. It says this:
" Sec. 18. Use of weapons. A law enforcement agency operating a drone under this Act is prohibited from equipping or using on a drone any firearm, weaponized laser, kinetic impact projectile, chemical agent or irritant, or any other lethal or non-lethal weapon."
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#26Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#27[flagged]
While bringing attention to the challenges of policing may be important armed drones are not the hill to die on. Cops may need support from prosecutors and they may need better equipment to deal with gangs, but they never need armed drones.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#28I don't understand the issue with facial recognition if it is only used as a lead, and isn't considered evidence in and of itself, and a person's rights are respected even if they are flagged by the facial recognition software. If the issue is disparate success rates between races or other demographics, then let's just fuzz the incoming data until it's all equal. Facial recognition still sounds like an incredibly useful tool.
Banning facial recognition sounds to me like the legislature knows that the police force abuses people and will abuse people even more with facial recognition. Instead of banning tools that can increase the scope for abuse, why not try rooting out the people and culture perpetrating abuse in the first place?
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#29[flagged]
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#30[flagged]
You should go look at the ratio between administrative costs and actual beat cop salaries. The rising cost of college and the rising cost of law enforcement/defense suffers from a similar decay of middle men leaches just creating fees. Also as a note, theres not a lot of correlation between an increase and violence and reduced weapons policy, its almost driven by some secondary macro trend.
The CPD has one of the lowest admin:beat cop ratios in the country. It's like 12:1. They're already about as lean as it gets.