>> ^Trancecoach:

Did they really leave the baby inside a running vehicle with the keys in the ignition?
White folks.

Also, did the YT write-up say that the carjacker is a woman, and still "at large." Dude, local police need to get on that.


Shall they wave their magic wands and conjure up evidence?

There's no face in the security camera, the parents don't look like they'd have gotten a good enough view of the suspect to describe them (The father was in the car with them upside-down for about 5 seconds before they took off)

So the only thing they -might- have is fingerprints, and even then, judging by the amount of visible exhaust coming out of the car, that was a cold night, they were probably wearing gloves.

I agree something should be done, but you cant expect something from nothing.

1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe.



Even England still has blasphemy laws on the books from hundreds of years ago, but they're never enforced. Actual instances of people being prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe are very few and far between.



The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.



Depends how the cameras are used. The mere existence of CCTV cameras on the streets is not necessarily a bad thing.



There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit.



That would be very very bad, but the law hasn't actually been passed yet. It was just proposed. Surveilance of the internet is worse than surveilance of public streets because:



1. Nearly all internet crimes are victimless crimes except where people are using the internet to plan to do something IRL. There is no such thing as getting mugged on the internet, and viruses/hacking are nearly 100% avoidable as a matter of personal responsibility without much need for policing.



2. There is an expectation of privacy in your personal communications that does not exist when you're walking down a public street. If 1000 other people walking down that street can see it too, why are you worried about one more guy watching it on CCTV?



3. People can and will use encryption to circumvent any and all attempts at policing the internet, so don't even bother. Internet anarchy is inevitable so you might as well accept it.




Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).



This is exactly the same in principle as fingerprinting. I've got no problem with it.


There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.
It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.




Separate courts for Sharia law are bad, but is that really much different from a corporation making employees agree to resolve all civil disputes with the employer via binding arbitration with a particular arbitrator? In the latter case there's sort of coercion/adhesion going on. If both sides were really free to choose and agreed upon using a particular arbitrator to resolve their civil disputes, then there'd be no problem. If e.g. Muslim women in abusive relationships are being forced my their husbands to use these separate courts, that's terrible, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that or anything similar.

Fingerprint tech has been so easily broken so many times now, even by the Mythbuster team. I would definitely not want anything to do with it, unless it has somehow gotten A LOT better.

This tech is a decent expansion of something that isn't too big a change from the current setup and is backward compatible, which is what makes it viable. I'm sure people have thought of many far safer methods but how are you going to get that out to the hundreds of millions of card readers in use today. Things need to happen gradually.

What would be useful is if you could actively disable/enable the cards number, so it is only usable exactly when you need to make a purchase and attempts at using it while it is disabled are rejected. It won't do much for physical theft but that would be great for online theft.

>> ^HugeJerk:

Some decent ideas that work with the current systems. At some point, I'd prefer something about the size of a USB thumbdrive or keychain that uses a fingerprint to unlock, is wireless, and universal.

Some decent ideas that work with the current systems. At some point, I'd prefer something about the size of a USB thumbdrive or keychain that uses a fingerprint to unlock, is wireless, and universal.

^And you don't even need to cover yo' fingerprints!

No. I used it though and I just find it uncomfortable, I can see why Jobs put it on his lap its impossible to hold this thing the whole time. Typing by pecking is really annoying, it would have been nice if they made two areas for game pad like text input. Everything else works like an iPhone, bar the iPhone specific apps nothing was really impressive and going online with its lack of flash is kinda sucky. It all looks shiny of course but a huge fingerprint magnet. Still have no idea what's it's use exactly.

Still waiting for the announcement of iPadEX.

The officer did nothing wrong. He was demonstrating how to use the fingerprint reader in fast motion.

TY choggie!


In reply to this comment by choggie:
*promote for all the news fans here, wallowing in the United Internets of Unconsciousness

Vote with the brain that's not damaged. It's marinara......he's good people

>> ^MrFisk:

Her look of shocked disbelief reminds me of what Tiger Woods' wife probably looked like when she first found out.


HAHAHAHAH!

>> ^burdturgler:
Again .. great point .. just like the whole voter fraud ballot box fingerprinting thing .. but really bullshit in context with the video. And with the entire discussion. The fact that people cheat on tests isn't in question. The fact is the Niqab is not the problem. I guarantee you that teachers don't tell students to remove their yamakas.


How are you realistically going to tell the difference between Student A and her sister when they're both wearing Niqab? Fingerprinting is too tedious, voice ID too unreliable.

@jwray
Again .. great point .. just like the whole voter fraud ballot box fingerprinting thing .. but really bullshit in context with the video. And with the entire discussion. The fact that people cheat on tests isn't in question. The fact is the Niqab is not the problem. I guarantee you that teachers don't tell students to remove their yamakas. This is not a security or integrity issue, it's a discrimination issue. Or did students not cheat before wearing the Niqab?

Is there really a huge wave of test impersonators using a Muslim Niqab? I call bullshit on that. I also call bullshit on the Niqab being an impediment to communication. They're not taking acting classes. Don't tell me you can't hear what's being said through a veil. It's not a muzzle. It's a thin piece of cloth. I hear my stupid neighbors arguing across the fucking street every day. If you want to make this about security you have a real problem, because like I said, the onus is on them to provide security and that means everyone needs to be identified before the test, but they are not trying to identify everybody.

" There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea." ... "The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it." ...

This custom has been around for over a thousand years. Long before the foundation to these schools were poured. In fact, longer than many nations have existed. It doesn't really matter, justifying these rights is part of the problem. They already ARE rights. Taking rights away is the issue and you all should be concerned when any government starts telling you what you can wear.

>> ^jwray:
There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:
1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.

Additionally:
3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.
4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.
5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:

1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.


Additionally:

3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.

4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.

5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

lmao ..

Hello "maffu"'s girlfriend. This is burdturglers' mom. I'm going to respond to this post because BT is busy taking a dump.

This isn't about a knife. It's about a scarf. As for identity, the school knows full well who the student is, if there was really some concern then all students should wear personally identifiable ID badges outside of their clothing so that everyone at every time can ascertain the identity of everyone. Maybe they should use an eye scanner before someone enters the campus grounds. The onus is on them to provide security and integrity for the schools but that has to be done without sacrificing the freedoms of individuals. You are talking a lot of shit that has nothing to do with the subject. You want to check fingerprints at the ballot box? Great. Has nothing to do with a woman being allowed to wear a scarf over her face for her religion.

Britsh people write good (better?)
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/loser-britains-identity-crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_card_(United_Kingdom)

Biometrics in the patriot act:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/biometric

This bill has sponsors in the senate
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954904575110124037066854.html

__________________
If you read those links you would know that biometrics aren't needed to prevent illegals working here in the USA.
So the government is not quite telling the truth.
However it will make it harder for hoods to steal checkbooks when their id card doesn't match their fingerprints. No doubt the fingerprint machine will have handcuffs built in.