Through a Face Scanner Darkly 336
An anonymous reader writes in with a story that raises the issue of how public anonymity is quickly disappearing thanks to facial recognition technology. "NameTag, an app built for Google Glass by a company called FacialNetwork.com, offers a face scanner for encounters with strangers. You see somebody on the sidewalk and, slipping on your high-tech spectacles, select the app. Snap a photo of a passerby, then wait a minute as the image is sent up to the company's database and a match is hunted down. The results load in front of your left eye, a selection of personal details that might include someone's name, occupation, Facebook and/or Twitter profile, and, conveniently, whether there's a corresponding entry in the national sex-offender registry."
It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (Score:2, Interesting)
Soon, there will be other heads-up displays. This is one of the more useful applications for them. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it works.
I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, I don't give a fuck about sex offender list crazyness.
I do not want *anybody* to tell me who i should be afraid of or not.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to be able to meet someone and get to know him/her by actually talking to him/her.
And no, I don't give a fuck about sex offender list crazyness.
I do not want *anybody* to tell me who i should be afraid of or not.
What's stopping you?
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wearing stupid Google glasses, in a dystopian future.
I hope I am not the only one here who would have an awkward feeling if I knew that someone I meet just did at least the equivalent of a Google search on me before we even talk.
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Interesting)
I work with a registered sex-offender. The reason why this guy works for us is because he was grandfathered in before the company started doing background checks, and we don't see a reason to let him go since he is in compliance with the law and does his job really well.
You can look him up and see his face and everything, again, he's fully compliant. Most importantly, though, we don't hold his past against him because his offense was something like "Intent of Sexual Assault," which is something that any cheating or otherwise regretful whore could have fabricated after leading a man on while in a drunken stupor before her boyfriend found out and gave her an ultimatum.
Of course, the whole registry thing is simply to convince suburban housewives that evil is always lurking around the corner, and that they should be perpetually afraid of events with little statistical significance. But we're not talking about terrorism, this time.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to say this but a lot of people on the registered offender lists might be innocent of what you or I would consider a sexual offense. I know of a person who stopped to take a piss on the way walking home from a bar and because it was close to a school (which was empty because it was 3 am), he had to fight charges that would have put him on the list. I think it cost him around $25k in lawyers and fighting the charges in order to not be on the list. I know of another, an 18 year old kid who was dating some chick in his math class (high school). They dated since he was 16 but she was more then 2 years difference in age so when he turned 18, a concerned neighbor turned them in and he went up on statutory gross sexual imposition charges which definitely put him on the list. The neighbor, who after discussing ways to please a man with this 15 year old girl, was appalled to find out her boyfriend of 2 years was 18 years old now and she wouldn't be 16 for another 3 months so she promptly reported the situation to children's protective services. He was a good kid and everyone who knew them went in as character references during the trial but it didn't seem to matter as it was a statutory thing and the judge's hands were tied (so he said).
They have changed the law a bit in the years since then, but if it happened that easily, I'm sure there are more people wearing the label that do not deserve it. There are likely a lot of people who do deserve it, but I'm not sure the classifications are rational enough to be concerned over someone who has to register.
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Informative)
For example: you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, but you live near the border with a state where it is 18. (Yes, it is 16 in some states and in others lower still.) You go across the border on a weekend to go boating, or skiing, or something... forgetting where you are, you get caught by somebody in an intimate situation.
You guessed it... a lifetime on an offender registry for doing something that would have been perfectly legal just a mile away.
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Informative)
You guessed it... a lifetime on an offender registry for doing something that would have been perfectly legal just a mile away.
It's even worse than that. From a state where the age of consent is higher, go to one where it's lower for a weekend, perform an act that would have been legal in that state if you were a resident, go home and get arrested for the "crime" of transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.
People like nothing better than to get outraged about sex.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, you mean 17 year olds might want to have sex without becoming convicted rapists for it? I'm still confused why the age of consent is 18 anywhere.
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because my little 16-year-old Susie is a good girl, and would never have consented to blowing dudes behind the bleachers, so she must have been raped!
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of offenses should not even be registered as a sex offender offense.
Rape, kid abduction, kiddie-porn and similar - yup, those people doing that are real sex offenders.
All other may still have committed a crime related to sex, but they're not real sex offenders and should not be registered as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
"You don't have to justify your non-hate of a convicted sex-offender by downplaying their guilt. It's perfectly acceptable to say that he committed a crime, and has changed his life, and is now a law-abiding citizen."
Why don't YOU accept the fact that some things that get people on sex-offender registries are inherently ridiculous, and therefore a travesty of justice?
Did you know that in some states, going out behind the tavern and peeing in the bushes because the bathroom is full can get you put on a sex-offender registry for life?
The laws are fucking ridiculous and need to change. Sure, some people are guilty of horrendous crimes. But taking people who have committed a pretty damned trivial offense, and lumping them together for life with child rapists, is at least as offensive as those child rapists.
Look up the actual laws. Get a clue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I know streaking is still technically legal, but ... you just don't see that many streakers any more. I attribute this to the devastating social consequences of the sex offender registry.
That is bad. I thought you had to do something illegal to get put on the registry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
"You seem just as adamant that this person you don't know at all is most likely guilty."
And this is a very good illustratration of one of the BIG problems with such registries: no matter how trivial the crime, people will assume (A) that you're guilty, and (B) that you are a child rapist, even if you were only convicted of a trivial offense.
Studies have shown that people almost never inquire why someone is on a registry. Instead they just assume the worst.
And it also shows why a national registry is an outrageously BAD IDEA. A person who was an offender in one state would face a lifetime stigma, even in other states where the "offending" activity was perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:3)
I know here in Chicago, if you're drunk and you decide to relieve yourself in an alley someplace, even away from the street, a cop may and sometimes will bust you for public indecent exposure, a sex offense. So, for one night of drinking, you're on the same registry as a rapist.
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:4)
The issue wasn't that the person wasn't guilty of the offense, the issue was grouping trivial offenses with horrifying ones under the label of "sex offender". This is over-punishing the person who commits a minor infraction by treating them as if they'd done something truly deserving of a lifetime of being labeled a "sex offender".
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good demonstration of 'assuming the worst': you've just treated 'sex offenders registry' as a 'child sex offenders registry', with no logical or factual reason for doing that. Someone who put his hand somewhere he shouldn't in a nightclub aged 21 and was unlucky enough to get prosecuted is someone who once did something rather unpleasant, but not a danger to your children because of it, nor someone to ostracise for 20 years. And someone who engaged in under-age sexual activity as a teenager is not
Re: (Score:3)
"Look, child molesters are child molesters for life. It's a sexual preference. Having sex with other adults is just boring."
Wow. Those three sentences are so wrong in this context, in so many ways, it's hard to count.
We had some debates about proposed changes in the law here a few years ago, so I spent some time looking these things up. Actual crime statistics, for just one example.
Your FIRST error is assuming that "sex offenders" are child molesters. By far the majority of people who are on sex offender registries are there for "offenses" that did not involve children AT ALL. Many of the laws that put people on sex offend
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the poster DID NOT say they "choose to believe that this particular person was never a criminal" but rather that the charge is so common as to be virtually useless for assignment of actual guilt, without further information. To take ANY side AT ALL, either for or against, without further evidence beyond the name of the charge and the inclusion on the sex offendor registry, is to make an assumption. The parent, presumably, was not present at the trial, and so would not have been exposed to that information.
DO NOT interpret this as a defense of anyone in particular. This is a defense of the idea that you should not make assumptions about a person based on incomplete evidence. Otherwise, you're lumping in high school kids dating each other with violent rapists and middle aged people molesting children.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone on the list is by legal definition guilty. Either they pled guilty or were found to be. It's that simple, there is no room for debate on this point. What is debatable is if the scarlet letter punishment is justifiable or reasonable for the rest of their lives, and if the Boolean value of being on the resister is a useful predictor of wether or not they are dangerous
Re:I do not look forward to this. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) He may not even have committed the crime.
2) Whether or not he did or not, he served his time. See 0)
If that's not enough why not:
a) execute them
b) imprison them for life
c) once they have served their time, give them the option of living in pleasant "sex offender" reservations where their legal needs will be provided for and they can live comfortably for the rest of their life, where they don't have to be amongst all those people that don't want to be with them.
Otherwise what would you have these excriminals do? Forever be unable to easily get a job or house? After all there are calls for more women in XYZ fields, so how many decent jobs can he get that won't have women especially in this climate?
Sexual offender registries are a life sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
"I hope I am not the only one here who would have an awkward feeling if I knew that someone I meet just did at least the equivalent of a Google search on me before we even talk."
How about the awkward feeling that he googles you just after you talked?
Is that slightly better?
If there's something bad to learn about you, you're out of luck, no matter when you are googled.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually it'll be Google contact lenses and it'll be quite hard to tell if someone is wearing them.
Re: (Score:3)
I predict masks will make an enormous debut in fashion...
There's already moves afoot to make masks illegal. Seems they're often used by protesters.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict masks will make an enormous debut in fashion...
There's already moves afoot to make masks illegal. Seems they're often used by protesters.
They're already banned in Denmark for instance. Doesn't prevent people from wearing them but if they do, the police need no other reason to arrest and detain.
I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to the right to be anonymous in public. If you live in a small town, everybody will know you anyway and I cannot see why it would be a problem to be recognized in larger cities too. I know this is a cliché but if you behave normally and have nothing to hide, why fear being recognized? - If you do have something to h
Re: (Score:3)
Weird I always thought slashdot was mostly liberal with a bunch of moderates and a handful of republicans thrown in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To me a moderate is just someone with normative, but mixed views..which pretty much covers a huge swath of sane people. It scares me how many people proudly self-identify with one party or another. The scale between left and right is a continuum, and anyone who sees it as binary needs to stay the fuck away from me.
That's basically what I was getting at.
Non-normative views don't really sit on that scale, so with some people it's kind of hard to say I suppose...
"Chemtrails are mind control" is definitely hard
Slashdot, the marxist fascist whig rally site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused about the fact this is not a requirement. You don't need to buy these things. You can't actually buy Google Glass yet anyway.
You're safe.
Re: (Score:2)
no, the point is that other people will wear them and scan you without your consent or ability to prevent, absent wearing a mask like michael jackson or ripping the glasses of their faces.
Re: (Score:2)
This will evolve into Google Glass for Cops and Google Glass for Homeland Security.
Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (Score:5, Interesting)
Prediction: "smart" masks that not only obscure your face but also photorealistically display the face of some other random person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's coming, whether Google likes it or not. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Crickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With ubiquity comes desensitization.
With well-disguised cameras, desensitization is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but irrelevant. Given the low cost and ready availability of virtually undetectable cameras -- and the understanding that cost and detectability will continue declining -- any expectation that you may have that you're not being recorded when in public is arguably self-delusion. The best strategy is acceptance that public is public and that anything you do in public may be preserved for all time. Given that, desensitization is nothing more or less than convincing your emotions to admit reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to find a girl at my university that needs some tuition money, and pay her to walk into the women's locker room wearing google glass in record mode. Is there an app for that yet?
The real key with desensitization in this is that we introduce ubiquitous cameras into spaces previously considered "camera-free" for the most part. If I take out an
Face identified! (Score:2, Insightful)
By donning your Glasshole Identifier, your face will also be immediately recognizable as belonging on the National Pervy Googler Registry, to be shunned by all decent company.
Sigh (Score:2)
Snap a photo of a passerby...
Doing this is what makes you a Glasshole.
fake data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am doing that for years.
It's against the law (Score:2)
In some countries it will get you to jail. Other countries will follow the trend soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy stock in cap and sunglass companies (Score:2)
Soon everyone is going to want to look like a movie start hiding from the paparazzi.
Ski masks, they're not just for bank robbers any more..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (Score:5, Interesting)
because no one would misuse this tech to act creepy.
True story:
Back around 1989 I was maintaining a minicomputer system for a small chain of Auto Body Shops near Ft. Worth Texas. I got to know a lot about how the business works and made friends with some of the VERY blue collar guys who sanded, welded, painted and whatnot.
At that time the body shop had dedicated terminal that could dial up the Texas DMV database and retrieve the registration info for a given license plate. On at least two separate occasions I observed one of the shop guys using the terminal to get the name and address of a car they observed that was driven by an attractive woman. Nothing creepy or potentially dangerous there? Yeah.
Maybe we should study CCTV operators in England to make sure that attractive women, or any other category of people, aren't being watched more closely than everyone else.
Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should update our privacy laws and stop allowing companies and the government to store all this information about us in shitty databases to begin with.
Re:I'm glad I'm not an atractive woman. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe we should update our privacy laws and stop allowing companies and the government to store all this information about us in shitty databases to begin with.
This.
When even the cops use these databases on on other cops [sophos.com] you know the only solution is to stop building the databases in the first place.
Stalking pretty girls makes for a good visceral story, but the larger problem is one of political repression -- essentially using these databases to make it harder for political upstarts to instigate change, basically co-opting democracy.
BTW, that same database the cops used to stalk other cops? Also used to stalk political candidates. [reason.com]
Angry Birds an intentional distraction. (Score:3)
"BTW, that same database the cops used to stalk other cops? Also used to stalk political candidates."
And that is just the databases that the cops are allowed to use.
Did anyone pay attention to the full contents of the latest Snowden document release, aside from the Angry Birds articles that The Guardian and The New York Times focused on? There was significantly more important information in the latest leak. Mind-blowing, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
THINK about these capabilities. When you start
Re:Angry Birds an intentional distraction. (Score:5, Informative)
Spiegal Online apparently did a full release of images from each of the two document leaks--far more complete than the Wikipedia pages.
Scroll down for the images and "straight from the horse's mouth" descriptions of capabilities.
http://leaksource.wordpress.co... [wordpress.com]
Example---"NIGHTSTAND: Portable system that wirelessly installs Microsoft Windows exploits from a distance of up to eight miles" (I have a feeling it's been updated for Win7/8 by now)
http://leaksource.files.wordpr... [wordpress.com]
And....the guys developing and putting to use these capabilities.
http://leaksource.wordpress.co... [wordpress.com]
Make sure to check out the links at the bottom of that last page.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe we should update our privacy laws and stop allowing companies and the government to store all this information about us in shitty databases to begin with."
Or maybe we should come to the realization that privacy laws don't work in any context, and get rid of these types of database except when absolutely necessary. Much more importantly do not allow access to any of these any super-duper ultra absolutely necessary.
Sorry I ran out of superlatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, anther toy encouraging society to regress back to adolescent behavior...with much higher stakes.
Re:Great.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Great, anther toy encouraging society to regress back to adolescent behavior...with much higher stakes.
The stakes may be higher than some people think. Over thepast few years, several people I casually know (that is, I only know them by face and first name) have expressed the opinion that the sex offender list is a license to hunt and kill. How many people with similar names are going to get "tagged" by this service?
Re:Great.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sex-offender Registry (Score:2)
There's a simple solution to this registry. If everyone takes a photo of their naughty bits and sends it to the police station the sex-offender registry will soon be full of nearly all 314 million Americans.
A positive side effect of this is that your glasses will now identify the remaining ultra conservatives who may be far more dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
photo of their naughty bits
A minor offense for some, no doubt.
Shortened version (Score:2)
"Pubic anonymity disappearing due to facials".
2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Fuck you very much, facialnetwork.com and any other company that wants to deanonymize everyone.
2. Why the sex offender registry for starters? Is facialnetwork.com trying to scare everyone into thinking that the country is overrun by sex offenders? You can piss in an alley (not that that's generally a pleasant thing) and end up on a list with people who have committed violent sexual assaults. To me there is a huge gap in the moral turpitude between the two. The latter of the two examples is probably someone to be weary of, but I don't know if the former is necessarily someone any worse than someone who uses illegal drugs.
Re:2 things (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when there are 17.4 million users of a drug in the US alone eventually one of them will be a crazed cannibal.
In 2012 there was that New York cop [telegraph.co.uk] charged with plotting to murder and eat women. There are only about 795,000 police in the US so perhaps being a cop is a stronger indicator of a potential cannibal than cannabis use.
Re: (Score:2)
And (I think google it yourself) the son of sam killer...whoever the guy who's dog was telling him to kill people..got caught because he was smoking a blunt in his car. So cannabis has done some good things too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a test for marijuana, PCP, heroin, cocaine, and every other controlled substance, and you're smoking marijuana and taking a new designer drug, guess what you test positive for?
Just because the Mirror doesn't understand pathology doesn't give you an excuse for repeating it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bath Salts Cannibal used marijuana exclusively...
Holy shit did that dude have the munchies!
On a serious note, I would probably attribute his behavior to mental illness, but hey, let's not miss an opportunity to justify the war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
What, in your mind, is the difference in harmfulness between illegal and legal drugs, apart from the artificial issue of legality?
Re: (Score:2)
Bath salts are awful awful stuff...cathinones shouldn't be consumed by humans..ever. If it came down to whether or not I want my neighbor on some borderline-unknown cathinone salt (many of these "manufacturers" experiment) or doing rails of adderall..it's not a hard decision. Neither scenario is good, but one is significantly worse.
However the drug test showed he had nothing but bud in his system. I think just about everyone can agree that the pot
All I get ... (Score:2)
So, (Score:2)
What a nightmare this would be (Score:2)
Marking strangers as sex offenders (Score:4, Insightful)
Marking complete strangers as sex offenders based on lookup of a name found using facial recognition... what could possibly go wrong?
Left eye? (Score:2)
The results load in front of your left eye
I thought most if not all Google Glasses were right-eye.
And its all pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Phillip K. Dick, "A Scanner Darkly," 1977. One of the main plot points is that the protagonist, a police informant, has to keep his true identity a secret from everyone, including his police handlers.
Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (Score:5, Informative)
And the book title is itself a biblical reference to 1 Corinthians 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (King James Version) --- but I doubt the summary titler was alluding quite that far back.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure this is referring to the Glass app that acts like a face scanner, a more casual term for a device capable of utilizing facial recognition technology in order to identify someone by their face alone. Surely it's a play on the fact that the original quote is, "Through a glass, darkly," where glass (ostensibly referring to Google Glass) is replaced with the term for its new capabilities.
Re:What the fuck does that title mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the Biblical quote, its a metaphor for our imperfect knowledge, in contrast to how we will be in Heaven.
In the Phillip K Dick novel, the main character hopes that all of the high tech government scanners watching him can understand him (see cleary, rather than darkly), because he can't understand himself.
In the New Yorker article title (which was used for the Slashdot title), it makes no fucking sense and is just intended to reference the Phillip K Dick novel.
They could have had an interesting tie-in to the title by bringing up that the information you get from such an app probably wouldn't be a good representation of what a person is like. But I didn't see anything like that in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure he was an undercover agent.
He also gets horribly addicted to the drug in question.
Cultural literacy (Score:5, Informative)
E.D. Hirsch coined the term "cultural literacy" [wikipedia.org] to describe aspects of culture which have meaning that goes beyond the basic words.
An example from his book [amazon.com] is the phrase "there is a tide".
Those four words carried not only a lot of complex information, but also the persuasive force of a proverb. In addition to the basic practical meaning, "act now!" what came across was a lot of implicit reasons why immediate action was important.
For some of my younger readers who may not recognize the allusion, the passage from Julius Caesar is:
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
The phrase "A Scanner Darkly" was the title of a book (and movie) by Phillip K. Dick. It's part of the cultural literacy of science fiction, something that nerds might recognize. As in Hirsch's example, a few words convey a great deal of complex information.
The story title comes from the bible, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.", which artfully describes a system that identifies and footnotes faces seen through Google glass.
Cultural literacy references come into and go out of style, and Phillip K. Dick may be a bit dated for today's audience.
If you're interested, there are a few online "Cultural Literacy" tests, such as this one [readfaster.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the movie.
It's the story of Bob, an undercover law enforcement officer delving into drug culture.
Use of rotoscoping takes the audience themselves on a perception-altering experience. c.f. 1993's Suture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conflicted on this (Score:5, Insightful)
The inconvenience of forgetting someone's name is far far less problematic than the psychological and social damage pervasive surveillance does to society. I don't see how you can be conflicted at all..
Re:Conflicted on this (Score:5, Informative)
"...and then having to dig through your memory to try to remember who they are (failing miserably) while acting like you know exactly who they are."
I'd rather trust my own memory then out-source it.
For fuck sake people, are you listening to yourselves? This is a corporation literally trying to turn people into mobile data gathering devices. You are either deluding yourself about your own level of intelligence, or suffer from a serious lack of morality, if you think any of this is acceptable. Every person on this planet values privacy to some degree--What, exactly, do we really get in exchange for the loss of this privacy? Knowledge we could get by simply asking that person?
THINK, PEOPLE. If history is any sort of an indicator, any rights we sell today, our children must buy back with blood.
Re: (Score:3)
Aristotle was talking about 'time alone' with one's thoughts. The privacy being discussed here is about the revelation of personal information to others. _Read_ Aristotle before you quote him.
Re:Conflicted on this (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I could really use this as a prosthetic.
I can't remember faces, and I have a lot of trouble recognizing them. It's not full-blown prosopagnosia [wikipedia.org], but it's a real problem in daily life -- for example, if I run into a familiar co-worker at a grocery store, I'm likely not to recognize them, and I might come across as cold or distant. I compensated by being friendly to everyone, which earned me a reputation for being nice, if a bit spacy. And I can recognize my family, even "picture" them in my mind -- but I couldn't tell you what shape my wife's nose or ears are. Sketching people is right out.
I'd love to have heads-up subtitles on people, not to be creepy, just to put me on even footing with the rest of the world. If the price is that I have to feed knowledge of who I'm seeing to the Overmind, though, I'm not sure I'd strike the bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple compromise: you get to load your own database of faces using your own personal contacts. Still a bit creepy to some folks, but WAY less creepy than a stranger who can just walk up to me and act as if we knew each other way back since he knows my name and some other information about me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do Not Want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the adjustment phase, where people get in bar brawls, shopkeepers put up signs, legislators argue, inventors invent countermeasures...and eventually we'll be in the acce