Biometrics at the Statue of Liberty 452
gurps_npc writes "There is an interesting CNN article about the Statue of Liberty finally opening again (it was closed since 9/11 for security reasons).
They have increased security to 'airport levels', and offer lockers for people to rent, partly to keep those incredibly dangerous objects like swiss army knives away from the fragile Statue of Liberty. But instead of keys, the lockers use fingerprint readers to open and close (approximately one reader for every 50 lockers)." The article notes that the design was dictated by the Transportation Security Administration.
do you have to use a finger? (Score:5, Interesting)
a knuckle for example?
Re:do you have to use a finger? (Score:4, Funny)
Just curious...
Re:do you have to use a finger? (Score:3, Interesting)
Better yet use someone else's finger! Seriously enough I saw an episode of that one show from last year (can't remember the name but it's a crime drama about national security) where this one terrorist killed a guy in another country, then came to the US with the guy's fingers in baggies strapped around his waist. He then boiled them to get the skin off, glued it to his fingers and used that to work on a bomb he was making. In that case his purpose was to tr
Re:do you have to use a finger? (Score:5, Informative)
The terrorist should have done a google search [google.com] to find much simpler ways to fake fingerprints.
Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...
"Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about
"Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...
"Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...
"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."
Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1955)
__________________________________
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
"Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001
Re:Freedom? (Score:2)
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess he's showing us, huh?
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fine, but acknowledge Clinton sucked ass, too (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fine, but acknowledge Clinton sucked ass, too (Score:5, Informative)
"We can't be too concerned with protecting the rights of ordinary Americans." - Bill Clinton.
Actually, the quote is:
President William J. Clinton: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality." USA Today, March 11, 1993
Still an unattractive quote to a lot of folks, but when you stick a period in the middle of that sentence, its meaning changes a bit, no?
Also:
"We're going to take some things away from you, for the common good." - Hillary Clinton, very recently.
Yes, she said it. But what was she talking about, and who was she talking to? Was she talking about freedom? Rights? Liberties? Noooo... tax dollars.
Here it is in a slightly broader context:
From:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/062
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that
There is a big difference between taking away tax cuts from the wealthy, and taking away all American's civil liberties.
Be wary of context when you see a quote, folks.
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I would like to eat now." Osama bin Laden, October 2001
"What's for dinner?" John Kerry, June 2004
See how easy it is to connect random people with out-of-context quotes?
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Funny)
"Shut up" Teresa Heinz Kerry, August 11, 2004
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd be far more concerned about the kind of connection through political opinion and rhetoric displayed in the parent post, but you can keep banging on that "all evil people eat food" thepry if you like.
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940
They carry most of their context with them. The only thing different are the specific enemies they were facing. For Hitler it was communism, Jews and the powers that humiliated Germany at Versailles. For George W. its pretty much anybody who isn't in the "with us" column in "you are either with us or against" though in particular its Islamic extremists.
They are both saying they have enemies and they will use preemptive, aggressive warfare to eliminate them before they can strike. Not sure what context you could put around these two statements that would make them not mean the same thing.
Enemies from without or within, whether they be real, imagined or manufactured are probably the oldest tool for expanding the power of a government over its people. If people feel threatened or endangered they will usually sacrifice just about anything to be safe. The people in Germany did sacrifice everything but in the end it didn't lead to safety.
The key questions American's need to ask themselves today and aren't:
- how much are you willing to sacrifice to be "safe".
- are the sacrifices you're making actually resulting in improved safety.
Unfortunately many of the insane measurements being taken by an out of control government in Washington are, at the end of the day, more smoke and mirrors than real improvements.
If the sacrifices you are making are making you "safe" then you just need to ask yourself is it worth it.
If the sacrifices you are making aren't really make you much safer then why should you be making them.
A simple example, the way to prevent another 9/11 was extraordinarily simple. You put armored cockpit doors in all airliners. It cost a few million dollars and it didn't trample any civil liberties. Sure highjackers might still be able to take over the passanger compartment or blow up the plane but if you want to live in a free society you need to accept there are some risks. You make modest improvements in screening passengers and baggage if you want to minimize them. But instead your government responded to 9/11 with measures that were extraordinarily disruptive, expensive and trampled civil liberties in a major way. They border on making flying so unappealing people start to avoid it, especially if you fly to the U.S. from another country. At that point the measures to improve safety have surpassed the break even point, you would prefer being a little less safe so flying wont be so onerous that you stop doing it.
They are doing the same thing in their response to years old video footage found on suspected Al Qaeda. Rather than quietly tightening security on the targets and seek to foil any plots, instead they used them as a mechanism for pumping fear in the American people. In the process they tipped off Al Qaeda in a major way to the fact one of their networks was compromised which is just really bad intelligence work no matter how you look at it. They key benefit they got out of it though is they were able to use it as an excuse to further expand their self granted authority to randomly stop people both on the street and on the highways to engage in what would otherwise be illegal searches. You know you are in a police state when you can't drive down the highway without the risk of hitting a checkpoint where you are going to be ID'ed, searched and potentially detained for thouroughly vague reasons.
Re:Freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MOD Parent Overdramatic (Score:4, Interesting)
Overdramtic? I am not so sure about that.
But I have to agree with the poster who speaks about using boxes to change things.
Re:MOD Parent Overdramatic (Score:4, Informative)
Hitler was not elected; he was appointed to the seat of Chancellor in 1933 by Hindenburg to whom Hitler had lost the presidential election to in 1932. He managed to convince Hindenburg to merge the seats of the Chancellor and President into one upon the death of Hindenburg.
Hitler became effective fuhrer after the Reichstag fire in 1933 when he claimed emergency powers that effectively quashed whilst not exactly outlawing political dissent. Strangely enough the merger of Chancellor and President was then approved by referrendum in 1934.
You are free to draw your own parallels if you wish.
Re:MOD Parent Overdramatic (Score:3, Informative)
The point the poster was trying to make was that things get worse gradually, and the history of Nazi Germany and Hitler's gradual rise to absolute power clearly bears that out.
Which locker did I use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Which locker did I use? (Score:5, Funny)
-Peter
Re:Which locker did I use? (Score:2)
Re:Which locker did I use? (Score:3, Interesting)
They have passcode style ones at the mall here, but it isn't hard to tell which locker is yours.. As soon as you enter your code you can here the door unlock.
Re:Which locker did I use? (Score:2)
Though, I wonder if it would display it on the screen? The picture in the article showed a screen there, so it would probably tell you which locker on that screen, right??
Re:Which locker did I use? (Score:2)
And I just questioned above, I wonder if the screen on the system would probably show the locker number when you scan to have it open?
I don't have a problem with this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:2)
what an elegant way of secretly checking fingerprints!
If it's not that way right now, it will be shortly.. it took me 30 seconds to think this up, I'm sure there is a NSA guy drooling over the idea already.
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to have a problem with this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now in its early stages, the program, known as US-VISIT, calls for visitors to go through biometric scans to ensure that they are who their visa or passport says they are. Passports issued by the United States and other countries are getting new chips that will have facial-recognition data, and other biometrics might be added.
Read t
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not whether you are a terrorist or not, it's whether the system identifies you as a terrorist.
As an example: a case in south africa [guardian.co.uk] not so long ago, a British man was held for 21 days by South African authorities at the request of the FBI, because they mistakenly believed they "had their man". Imagine now that a system as falsely trusted as fingerprint scanning marks you - an innocent man - as a terrorist - the current bogey man. Your stay in a holding cell could well be beyond 21 days!
Of course, this is overlooking the fact that it would appear that these scanners are not likely to be linked to any central database!
Re:I don't have a problem with this (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt this DOEN'T happen.
In fact, I'm pretty sure they keep that fingerprint stored with a few choice pictures from the security cameras, while they're at it. What? You think there's no cameras?
Wait for it, in a few years, this fingerprint "news" will come out, and you'll be surprised.
I don't mind being checked against a terrorist database. I'm not a
I'm glad its reopened. (Score:5, Funny)
--
Newsflash: Hijacking the Statue. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Newsflash: Hijacking the Statue. (Score:2, Funny)
In other news the golden gate bridge has just walked to Japan..
Re:Newsflash: Hijacking the Statue. (Score:3, Funny)
If they do happen to do it they might want to pad her feet. A lot of advancements have occured in the size of sneakers since Spangler and Ray decided to use this method back in the 1990s.
Re:Newsflash: Hijacking the Statue. (Score:2)
Re:Newsflash: Hijacking the Statue. (Score:2)
A Jackie Wilson hit from the 1967 does not really count as "late 80's pop".
I agree though, your idea would warrant such overboard preventative measures. Eeek.
Statue eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Yout maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to Hell!
Re:Statue eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
If terrorists puncture or deflate it, we just grab another
one out of the basement and plug in the compressor.
No, not
Like the things they have on the roof of car dealerships;
so the fans inside would make her dance back and forth
and wave her arms in the air.
Oh, and the crown part should be one of those castle things
for kids to jump around in (so visitors would need to remove
their shoes and put them in the lo
honest question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:honest question (Score:2)
Some of the "full-hand-type" biometric readers take a multitude of inital measurments, only a portion are used for each scan. Some will measure width of the palm, length of fingers, lines in the hands and/or fingers, etc. A multitude of things.
My guess would be that it will scan whatever you give it, so long as it recognizes SOMETHING is there. Now as for allowing access, thats another matter
Check the Department above... (Score:2)
This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, this is a pretty nifty use of biometric technology, to key the person's fingerprint to locking & opening a locker. I'd think the implementation of such a system would be more on-topic for Slashdot
Re:This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:2)
It is a violation of "rights" by "online" means (Score:2)
Up to that point, it is nifty and it's not a rights problem.
It turns into a rights problem when visitors who thought they were getting a locker in fact get a database check. Even if such a check were "reasonable and necessary", it would still qualify as "awful and tragic". And, how can anyone trust that this d
Re:This is neither "rights" nor "online". (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly what the *good* "citizens" of our fine country are supposed to say. "I have nothing to hide please take my finger prints."
I say the hell with that. Just because we have nothing to hide does not mean that we should happily fork over our identities.
As far as it being a useful technology. Yes, it's a fantastic overuse of a technology. I always felt that a key or a temporary code worked better. Perhaps I am just old-fashioned that way probably just paranoid.
The government wants us to be paranoid over terrorists to detract from being paranoid about them. I'm not fooled.
The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:3, Informative)
The article discusses other end-user fingerprinting applications, and mentions the US-VISIT program where every terrorist, uh, foreigner entering the United States will get fingerprinted and the fingerprints of THAT scan will be run against the FBI database.
The fingerprints taken to access lockers at the Statue of Liberty are NOT run against the FBI database.
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, then it is no better than in the movie "Demolition Man" where the head cop figures they'll catch Wesley Snipes by waiting for him to kill someone so they'll know "where he is."
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:5, Insightful)
And pray tell, how would you know that?
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:3, Insightful)
I submit to you that those are wildly different and incomparable situations. Do I know that my fingerprints aren't lifted from [insert random place] and my actions tracked? Of course, I don't, but I worry about the things that I KNOW are happ
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me old-fashioned,
Re:The prints are NOT run against the FBI database (Score:2)
More inconvenience. (Score:2)
No problem. (Score:2, Funny)
Plastics... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Plastics... (Score:2)
Re:Plastics... (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder what the proceedure is for getting your stuff back should you be one of those 2%.
What's next??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Curious about the technology architecture (Score:3, Interesting)
One really nice use would be to have chemical detectors and similar rigged up with the lockers to prevent someone from storing a bomb inside them -- and hey, if you find a prohibited item that needs to be turned over to law enforcement, you already have a fingerprint to run against the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC, the same one used for background checks for security clearances and the like).
Seeing as how similar biometric systems are already in place for people with visas entering the country, why not tie it all together into a system that Homeland Defense can monitor? Ooh, I get all tingly thinking about the implications here.
So... anyone have any additional information on the company that did the manufacturing for this system, or any ideas on what the internal architecture is like? Inquiring privacy-minded people want to know. ^^
Today's Rumor (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Today's Rumor (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I think he'd never go through with it, for fear of offending the French.
Have you been awake for the last three years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. Sarcasm is such a clever device for shoehorning an opinion into an otherwise normal statement. Let me try: ... oh wait.
"Yeah, I really bet that someone could fly a couple of planes into some buildings using box cutters as weapons to*"
Re:Have you been awake for the last three years? (Score:3, Insightful)
My reaction to all of this is to condemn the bad health and placating attitude of threatened Americans, not to go after their pocket knives, letter openers, and nail clippers.
Re:Have you been awake for the last three years? (Score:3, Interesting)
4 planes were hijacked, only 3 buildings were hit. The last plane failed not they forgot to bring box cutters, but because the passengers realized what was really going on and took action. The presence of the horribly dangerous box-cutters did NOT help the terrorists in any way shape or form. They could have taken the first 3 planes just by claiming they had a bomb and that they would blow up the plane unless
Differing Slashdot summaries (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the info, for posterity, with differences in bold.
Your Rights Online: Statue of Liberty Checks Fingerprints Against FBI Watchlist
Posted by michael on Thu Aug 12, '04 11:13 AM
from the oh-the-irony dept.
gurps_npc writes "There is an interesting CNN article about the Statue of Liberty finally opening again (it was closed since 9/11 for security reasons). They have increased security to 'airport levels', and offer lockers for people to rent, partly to keep those incredibly dangerous objects like swiss army knives away from the fragile Statue of Liberty. But instead of keys, the lockers use fingerprint readers to open and close (approximately one reader for every 50 lockers). The privacy violation is of course that the lockers ALSO check your fingerprints against the FBI Terrorist Watch List. The article does not mention if any record of the finger print is kept by the FBI if it does not match. It also does not mention if the machine themselves keep a record of your fingerprint after you recover your stuff."
Note that the editorial comment about the TSA design requirement wasn't in the original, either.
Oh, the irony... (Score:2)
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control.
When an icon of freedom can't be visited without controls and restriction, what's left?
Re:Oh, the irony... (Score:3, Insightful)
America has always been the land of the free, with some caveats.
Re:Oh, the irony... (Score:2)
and home of the brave, with a couple of girls' blouses that we don't talk about.
In general, if you treat people like adults, they will act like adults. Its not a huge jump to if you treat people like criminals, they will act like criminals.
Don't you see that have an icon of fredom, the freedom that supposedly the foundation on which the nation is built, under such heavy guard, is an incredibly powerful comment on just how much of the freed
More technology means less privacy. (Score:2)
Regardless of the laws that say it is not supposed to be done, one has no choice but to assume that if it is possible to track you, monitor you, profile you, what have you...
You simply have to accept this as one of many realities... especially in a Post-9/11 World.
Re:More technology means less privacy. (Score:2)
Lovely this is happening at a symbol of freedom. (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that don't get the stupid part of this let me explain. If you were a terrorist casing the statue of liberty for a future attack and noticed the lockers required fingerprint scans would you use one? Even if you didn't know they'd be checking them against the FBI database you'd have to be one seriously stupid terrorist to not realize the possibility exists and it could blow your cover. They'll probably find a random minor criminal or two and arrest them with some trumped up charges to make it sound/look like these are helping fight the war on terror.
Course the reality is they're not helping any, they're just further eroding what little privacy we have left and the terrorists will just avoid them. And yes I realize we're not guaranteed privacy in public places but running fingerprints without notice (on a regular basis, not just when you suspect someone of a crime) is a bit beyond the erosion of privacy we expect. It's just surreal, I don't think even Orwell thought things would get this silly.
Re:Lovely this is happening at a symbol of freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that theory is that Al Queda has proven itself to be rather creative in how it'll attack. I think it's fair to say they aren't considering "normal" expected methods (like bombs in a locker) primarily. They're g
Rather ironic.. (Score:2)
At least in my experience, the SoL doesn't have as great symbolic value outside the US as it does to americans.
What Americans consider important american symbols aren't always the same ones the rest of the world thinks of when they think of America.
Re:Rather ironic.. (Score:2)
To date, I've seen about 3 bowling alleys, 12 icky hotels, 2 pachinko parlors and a record shop with fiberglass SoLs on.
That suggests some powerful symbolic value.
I think it's symbolic of 'trying to differentiate your little cuboid building from the other little cuboid buildings on the strip, without spending much money', which, now I think of it, is actually a big part of the American Dream.
whats the point? (Score:2)
Similar to Universal Studios in Florida? (Score:4, Informative)
There is one computer with a fingerprint reader and a touch screen for a bank of lockers. When renting the locker you had to put your finger on the reader twice. Once the computer had two reads that matched for you, it would give you a locker number, you put your stuff in it and push the button to lock it. When you come back you have to remember your locker number and enter that on a touch screen, then present your finger to the reader again. When your fingerprint matches, the system unlocks your locker and you get your stuff.
what I want to know... (Score:2)
Convienently for terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/25/13
I was just there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I was just there... (Score:5, Insightful)
I live a few blocks away from Canada'sParliament Hill [parl.gc.ca] and walked over at about midnight for a walk last night. I didn't see a single person for the first ten minutes. There was one area that had a few RCMP cars (probably their dispatch), but other than that there was virtually no security. I was literally within 10 feet of Centre Block [parl.gc.ca]'s front door without being bothered in the slightest.
Now certainly Americans have a lot more cause to be cautious, but there's also an attitude here that excessive worry and planning for the worst just give you wrinkles.
Then again, if Canada were attacked we might feel differently.
Re:I was just there... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I was just there... (Score:3, Interesting)
One nut rammed his truck into the front steps at parliament hill a few years back.
A crazed soldier walked into the Quebec legislature 20 years back, and shot the place up - it was just chance that he screwed up the time the legislature was in session, and arrived when the chamber was empty.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-70-1308-7634-11/th a t_ was_then/disasters_tragedies/lortie_gunman
I guess you could also count the time back in 1916 when the mob burned the centre block to
Re:I was just there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying the seat of government of a widely respected nation won't have nearly the same impact that destroying the Statue of Liberty would?
The seat of government of one of the most widely respected nations in the world, a member of the G7 and NATO (I believe). The place where the prime minister, house of commons, and senate work?
Compared to a 200 year old statue symbolic? Amusingly enough a statue symbolic of the freedoms slipping away in the US. I'll bet the French will get a real kick out of
Freedom Fries! (Score:5, Funny)
Which reminds me of a great point I used to pull out when the whole France/Freedom Fries thing was going on. If you're that mad at them then give their damn statue back!
Re:I was just there... (Score:3, Interesting)
I tell you, if you watch the new Manchurian Candidate, you see some of what really bothers me. The back-story, if you will, is full of national events that are on the verge of actually occurring. Armed army units patrolling streets, every monument in DC gu
Fails to meet even minimum standards (Score:2)
Purpose Specification Principle: The purposes for which personal data are c
Privacy Violation? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the good guys? (Score:2)
I don't think Egon really wants to bother with these kind of stuff.
YAGI (Score:3, Funny)
I do not agree w/the background check, but I would just not use the lockers. If they added 'just to visit' I would not visit the SoL.
The 'slippery-slope' of the checks is that they will expand and all state enforcements will report to a central database.
Of course, you get the 'I am not a criminal so I therefore have no problem w/these intrusions' from some people. Good for you. Maybe you can the first to sign up for the goverment's future Constant Resident Awareness Protection (CRAP) program, which will give you faster access to public buildings and services as long as you agree to have a GPS-monitor ID embedded in your skin.
I am not a terrorist or felon, but I object to the increasing government intrusion for my 'safety'. I am in the group loathe to sacrifice liberty for security.
My fingerprint reader story (Score:5, Interesting)
I was still let in.
So I went in, put the monitor down, and came back out to experiment. I tried another finger. It worked... I tried a knuckle. It worked...
Finally, I held my hair (long hair) back, leaned down, and gently pressed the tip of my NOSE to the scanner plate.
It worked.
Moral of the story: Biometric security is sometimes just so much heehaw, and it does malfunction (and yields false-positives as well as false-negatives).
Irony (Score:2)
-- Bob
Fingerprint being used at Paramount Parks (Score:3, Interesting)
the finger points (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the print is stored, or it wouldn't be compared to the finger opening the locker. If the reporter got that wrong, maybe they're also misinforming us about its transmission. Americans need a court judgement against people who abuse our personal info, and cover it up, that destroys the careers of people up and down the line who participate in these mass privacy invasions. This is the Big Brother we were warned about, without any protective metaphor. We need to secure our rights now, when the precedents appear, before they're lost forever - a few years from now will be far too late.
Strange quote.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many times do people visit the SoL? Once? Twice? Three times a Lady?
How are they going to get used to them? Unless, of course, these lockers will eventually be installed everywhere...(cue theater organ)
I'm still surprised that the morons who changed French Fries to 'Freedom Fries' haven't tried to get the SoL taken down and shipped back to France - after all, 'They are against us'.
Is this really so surprising? (Score:3, Informative)
Notice the shift of focus in media play? (Score:3, Funny)
That was the plan all along. The Mossad in collusion with the American secret government orchestrated 9-11. Box-cutters, my arse. The object which hit the pentagon wasn't even a passenger jet. The engine parts photographed in the wreckage match a much smaller aircraft, for goodness sake! Anybody who thinks differently has simply not done any research into the subject. Lazy, lazy ostriches! Perhaps some people DO need those Dopamine blocking monkey pills from a few articles down the cue! --And probably something to cut through the fear as well.
Expect it to get worse, comrade. Pretending it's not there is what got us all where we are now, with unwelcome troops in Iraq, a false residing president and population monitoring systems installed *very deliberately* at the foundation of the symbol of American freedom itself! You think that wasn't on purpose? Sheesh. This is psy-ops 101!
And we're just getting started, comrade!
-FL
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Ahhh... then you didn't notice the subtle but important difference between the original version and the version on
Re:Why would they keep the prints (Score:3, Insightful)
"but I agree, a clear violation of your right to privacy."
This is not meant as a troll or flame, but as an honest question. I am not well versed in constitutional law, so I'm hoping for some meaningful answers (yeah, I know I'm on Slashdot!).
My question is this - do we have an explicit, constitutional guarantee of privacy regardless of where we are? It seems to me I recall guarantees only regarding my private residences or lands, more recently, my private vehicle, and the private residences and lands,