You're viewing a single thread.
I have a vague memory from the late 90's during the dotcom bubble where there was this site where you could pay, log in, remotely control an actuated hunting rifle, and shoot an animal. It was deemed legal as it was legal where the actual shot was fired.
By the same logic I would think this idea would be legal as well.
I vaguely remember this! But I also remember it as anyone could control the video camera, so it could move in one of four directions but you could only move it once every so often.
The gun could only be fired by someone who paid for it.
By the same logic I would think this idea would be legal as well.
That's a thought, though I'd also point out that this might involve international law, and there might be different doctrines involved in international law.
Also, international law on involvement in warfare is fluid. I remember reading an article pointing out that if you go back, to, say, the pre-World War era, the obligations on non-involved parties were generally held to be much stricter -- like, doing something like having preferential arms export policy to one party would be considered involvement in a conflict. When Switzerland, earlier, refused to export Gepard ammunition to Ukraine, that's not really in line with the present norm, where countries often do provide arms to countries and consider that to be separate from being directly involved, but it does conform to historical rules on neutrality.
kagis
Not the article I was thinking of, but this is some related discussion:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735/3
International neutrality law governs the legal relationship between countries that are not taking part in an international armed conflict (neutral states) and those that are engaged in such a conflict (belligerents). The international community developed the principles of the international law of neutrality in an era before the Charter of the United Nations (U.N.) prohibited using force as a tool to resolve international conflict. Scholars have described the law of neutrality as an “old body of law” with a “slightly musty quality” that does not always translate to modern warfare.
Russia and Ukraine are engaged in an international armed conflict and, thus, are belligerents. Under traditional conceptions of neutrality, sending “war material of any kind” to Ukraine or any other belligerent would violate a duty of neutrality; however, some countries, including the United States, have adopted the doctrine of qualified neutrality. Under this doctrine, states can take non-neutral acts when supporting the victim of an unlawful war of aggression. For the reasons discussed in an earlier Sidebar, Ukraine has firm grounds to contend that it is such a victim and is acting in self-defense. Under these circumstances, arms assistance to Ukraine would generally be lawful under the qualified neutrality doctrine, provided that Ukraine complies with other legal frameworks governing the conduct of hostilities.
How much bandwidth did it need? The 90's seem early for a live video feed.
Also, man, that's a whole new meaning to the Wild West era of the internet.
Tbf, a frame every few seconds was considered "a live video feed" in the mid/late 90s.
I remember the numerous demonstrations of companies trying to make the video-phone happen as a business and domestic device and they certainly considered that a couple 120px frames per second in black and white made for impressive life like video.
The audiences generally weren't too enthusiastic for some reason.
My cousin and I used to watch fairy/leprechaun/wee-folk cameras in Ireland. Never saw shit. Starting to think there weren't any.
You just gotta watch longer bro trust me bro the wee folk are there bro
That would make sense, but I really hope you're not trying to shoot a deer based on a 3 second old image.
Looks like that gave a tiny black-and-white image with a lot of latency.
For the purposes of OP you'd really want pretty good quality and tiny latency. Otherwise you're kind of just spraying bullets randomly.