Yet another person who does not know how fingerprint scanners work but feels competent to comment. Fingerprint scanners store a mathematical representation of the fingerprint and not a picture. The representations are not comparable between companies and sometime models from the same company.
Fraud is one of the reasons but not the only one. Sorry but I have seen too many people sign in for others to blithely dismiss the fraud aspect. There are also other benefits to the bio-metric system; - Automatic data entry of exact times of work. With paper systems there needs to be people to transcribe the sign in sheets. - Faster log ins. All the worker has to do is swipe a thumb, wait for the beep and done. It is much faster than finding you card, signing it and putting it back. Here are the issues with card systems; - initial costs are higher as cards need to be issued - cards are lost and need to be replaced and deactivated. It is hard to do that with a finger. - cards can be used by unauthorized people. Even paper systems are more secure because most people are poor forgers. I know of a small operation who is looking into bio-metrics to cut down on paperwork. They are a manufacturing firm and have good employees.
I agree with you that the union has not made a valid case. With valid reasons for (costs, speed and fraud) and no real reasons against I come down on the for side.
A picture of the fingerprint is not stored but only a mathematical representation that are not comparable between machines. It is only compromised until the next encoding algorithm is used.
Punch machines have been used for decades. The worker takes a card, punched it through the machine and replaces it. This is no different. Being at work 5 minutes early/late is not a hardship.
Hourly wage earners have their hours tracked world over. It is human nature to want to screw the system. This system just happens to be much harder to screw.
What is the issue with having a mathematical representation of one's fingerprint stored by the company? It is not the actual fingerprint on file and there are many different algorithms to encode them. Different company's machines xcan not compre fingerprints and sometimes different versions of the same machine can not. What promise is there to break? Show up, log in correctly and we will pay you? What other promise is there to break?
The only "civil liberty" it attacks is the ability to fraudulently sign in for someone else. This is how unions get a bad name. Bio-metrics are used for time card validation on many places and it is neither "draconian" nor "an attack on civil liberties".
The article then goes on to talk about biometric authentication on mobile devices which has nothing to do with biometric time card sign ins. This is another sensationalistic piece which brings together unrelated information in an attempt to make a big splash.
The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak.
The answer is simple and held up by common law for centuries; "when the witness is not on trial and can not go to jail for speaking the truth". The administration of law and justice is a nation's highest duty and overrides an individual's desire to not testify. You mention "except in the most limited of circumstances". To me, testifying in a court of law where the witness will not go to jail is limited enough for me.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
Religion trumps policy, where it can be accommodated, but does not trump law.
In 1620, a group of English separatists, who became known as the Pilgrims, set sail for America to escape religious persecution amid the volatile religious and political climate. under James I. Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, their rejection of the Church of England was declared unlawful leading many members of their East Midlands congregation to flee to Holland. However, concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group set out to create a new colony in North America and chartered the Mayflower, a cargo ship, for the purpose. They departed from a site near Mayflower Steps in Plymouth, Devon in September 1620.
Does the right to free speech encompass the right not to speak?
No,
Should the government have a right to compel speech?
Yes.
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; ; should that be extended to testimony in court?
No. In cases of religion where saying such oaths is forbidden exceptions are made. I know of no religion that has issue with speaking truth in court.
What if you refuse to speak because you want to avoid helping a defendant
That is reason to be compelled to speak as the need for justice overides personal issues.
If you are their only alibi is there a compleling interets in forcing testimony that overrides your right to free speech?
You are now assuming one of your conjecture that free speech is also free not to speak. They re not even close. Even if your conjecture was true, false imprisonment overrides almost everything.
The trial judge ruled that the facts did not give rise to the defence as the threats had not been directed at the commission of a particular offence,
Duress is a defense only if one is threatened by someone that if you do not break a specific law that you or someone else will be harmed or killed. It would only work if someone threatened that if they did not lie on the stand that they would be harmed or killed. It does not mean that if one feels uncomfortable one is under duress and therefore can commit perjury. Even if the threat did exist it would be investigated by the police and the witness would be compelled to testify truthfully. An officer of the court telling someone to go onto the stand and tell the truth or they will be put in jail is not considered duress under the law.
And even if the mission fails, one learns from unforeseenmistakes
Knowing that something will fail and doing it anyway is just stupid.
By the way they are not the Modern Mayflower. Many of the Mayflower passengers were fleeing religious persecution due to their Puritanism. The trip to Mars, which will not happen any time soon, has nothing to do with that.
According to this the only date that matters is the publishing date with the copyright expiring 95 years after publishing (if renewed correctly);
Effect of 1976 Act on Length of Subsisting Copyrights The 1976 Copyright Act carried over the system in the 1909 Copyright Act for computing copyright duration for works protected by federal statute before January 1, 1978, with one major change: the length of the renewal term was increased to 47 years. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act increased the renewal term another 20 years to 67 years. Thus the maximum total term of copyright protection for works already protected by January 1, 1978, has been increased from 56 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 28 years) to 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years). Applying these standards, all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain.
Agreed. In clearcutting the ground is not baked to a cinder and there is plenty of branches left behind to decompose and enrich the soil. I am not saying clearcutting is great but it is much less harmfull than a hot wildfire.
Less but not as good as it could be. They do less burning in a decade that happened naturally year by year. They are getting better but there is a long way to go. 90% dead is less than 100% but it is still unacceptable(numbers just for illustrative purposes).
This is exactly what I said in the last article about this fire.
If you let fuel build up you create bigger hotter fires that kill trees and cause massive damage. It is evidenced by living trees with burn scars that trees can live through fires. When the fire get hot enough and enough bark is burned the tree dies. Another issue is that most tree trunks are bare a fair way up. This allows low burning fires to move through the forest and burn the brush. If these low burning fire get hot and high enough ther start burning the tree branches which also kills the trees. It also creates a crown fire which can spread rapidly and devastate large areas.
It is well known that proscribed burns are good for forests. We just are not doing them enough. We don't want to see blackened areas in our parks even though it is necessary to protect them from bigger fires.
The article is about autonomous ground vehicles which is why I am discussing autonomous ground vehicles and how natural systems are not suited for autonomous ground vehicles. Had the article been about autonomous flying vehicles I may have had a different opinion.
If we're going to permit hats in driver's licenses on the same basis, the answer is yes.
Sorry buy the real world is not that black and white, all or nothing. We make judgement calls all the time. There are certain part of religion we can make accommodations for, hats for example. Other parts we choose not to. Killing someone who converts from Muslim for example. No freedom is absolute. I believe that where we can make accommodations we should.
That is why it is called a belief and not a fact. It is not provable and it is not disprovable. It appears that you do not consider beliefs to be important. That is a very atheist belief. Others consider beliefs to be important and believe respect for beliefs is also important leading to accommodations for people's religions beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another person who does not know how fingerprint scanners work but feels competent to comment. Fingerprint scanners store a mathematical representation of the fingerprint and not a picture. The representations are not comparable between companies and sometime models from the same company.
Do some research on fingerprint scanners and get back to me. I did the research.
Fraud is one of the reasons but not the only one. Sorry but I have seen too many people sign in for others to blithely dismiss the fraud aspect. There are also other benefits to the bio-metric system;
- Automatic data entry of exact times of work. With paper systems there needs to be people to transcribe the sign in sheets.
- Faster log ins. All the worker has to do is swipe a thumb, wait for the beep and done. It is much faster than finding you card, signing it and putting it back.
Here are the issues with card systems;
- initial costs are higher as cards need to be issued
- cards are lost and need to be replaced and deactivated. It is hard to do that with a finger.
- cards can be used by unauthorized people. Even paper systems are more secure because most people are poor forgers.
I know of a small operation who is looking into bio-metrics to cut down on paperwork. They are a manufacturing firm and have good employees.
I agree with you that the union has not made a valid case. With valid reasons for (costs, speed and fraud) and no real reasons against I come down on the for side.
A picture of the fingerprint is not stored but only a mathematical representation that are not comparable between machines. It is only compromised until the next encoding algorithm is used.
Wrong issue. This is time card validation not security access.
Punch machines have been used for decades. The worker takes a card, punched it through the machine and replaces it. This is no different. Being at work 5 minutes early/late is not a hardship.
The fingerprint data was sent to facilitate the background check. The Underground is not doing that.
Hourly wage earners have their hours tracked world over. It is human nature to want to screw the system. This system just happens to be much harder to screw.
So what "civil liberty" do you think is being attacked? I see you as a "useful idiot" for the union.
What is the issue with having a mathematical representation of one's fingerprint stored by the company? It is not the actual fingerprint on file and there are many different algorithms to encode them. Different company's machines xcan not compre fingerprints and sometimes different versions of the same machine can not. What promise is there to break? Show up, log in correctly and we will pay you? What other promise is there to break?
The only "civil liberty" it attacks is the ability to fraudulently sign in for someone else. This is how unions get a bad name. Bio-metrics are used for time card validation on many places and it is neither "draconian" nor "an attack on civil liberties".
The article then goes on to talk about biometric authentication on mobile devices which has nothing to do with biometric time card sign ins. This is another sensationalistic piece which brings together unrelated information in an attempt to make a big splash.
The question is "when does teh government have a compelling reason to force you to forfeit that right because their is a greater good in forcing to speak.
The answer is simple and held up by common law for centuries; "when the witness is not on trial and can not go to jail for speaking the truth". The administration of law and justice is a nation's highest duty and overrides an individual's desire to not testify. You mention "except in the most limited of circumstances". To me, testifying in a court of law where the witness will not go to jail is limited enough for me.
What if their religion refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the court; or claim that a higher power's laws override mans and so they cannot be compelled to comply with said laws? Do you carve out a religious exception then
Religion trumps policy, where it can be accommodated, but does not trump law.
According to this they did flee persecution;
In 1620, a group of English separatists, who became known as the Pilgrims, set sail for America to escape religious persecution amid the volatile religious and political climate. under James I.
Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, their rejection of the Church of England was declared unlawful leading many members of their East Midlands congregation to flee to Holland.
However, concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group set out to create a new colony in North America and chartered the Mayflower, a cargo ship, for the purpose. They departed from a site near Mayflower Steps in Plymouth, Devon in September 1620.
You ask a lot of questions.
Does the right to free speech encompass the right not to speak?
No,
Should the government have a right to compel speech?
Yes.
We say "No" when it is speech we disagree with, such as allowing someone not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; ; should that be extended to testimony in court?
No. In cases of religion where saying such oaths is forbidden exceptions are made. I know of no religion that has issue with speaking truth in court.
What if you refuse to speak because you want to avoid helping a defendant
That is reason to be compelled to speak as the need for justice overides personal issues.
If you are their only alibi is there a compleling interets in forcing testimony that overrides your right to free speech?
You are now assuming one of your conjecture that free speech is also free not to speak. They re not even close. Even if your conjecture was true, false imprisonment overrides almost everything.
From tis article;
The trial judge ruled that the facts did not give rise to the defence as the threats had not been directed at the commission of a particular offence,
Duress is a defense only if one is threatened by someone that if you do not break a specific law that you or someone else will be harmed or killed. It would only work if someone threatened that if they did not lie on the stand that they would be harmed or killed. It does not mean that if one feels uncomfortable one is under duress and therefore can commit perjury. Even if the threat did exist it would be investigated by the police and the witness would be compelled to testify truthfully. An officer of the court telling someone to go onto the stand and tell the truth or they will be put in jail is not considered duress under the law.
And even if the mission fails, one learns from unforeseenmistakes
Knowing that something will fail and doing it anyway is just stupid.
By the way they are not the Modern Mayflower. Many of the Mayflower passengers were fleeing religious persecution due to their Puritanism. The trip to Mars, which will not happen any time soon, has nothing to do with that.
According to this the only date that matters is the publishing date with the copyright expiring 95 years after publishing (if renewed correctly);
Effect of 1976 Act on Length of Subsisting Copyrights
The 1976 Copyright Act carried over the system in the 1909 Copyright Act for computing copyright duration for works protected by federal statute before January 1, 1978, with one major change: the length of the renewal term was increased to 47 years. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act increased the renewal term another 20 years to 67 years. Thus the maximum total term of copyright protection for works already protected by January 1, 1978, has been increased from 56 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 28 years) to 95 years (a first term of 28 years plus a renewal term of 67 years). Applying these standards, all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain.
Clearcutting is less destructive.
Agreed. In clearcutting the ground is not baked to a cinder and there is plenty of branches left behind to decompose and enrich the soil. I am not saying clearcutting is great but it is much less harmfull than a hot wildfire.
Less but not as good as it could be. They do less burning in a decade that happened naturally year by year. They are getting better but there is a long way to go. 90% dead is less than 100% but it is still unacceptable(numbers just for illustrative purposes).
This is exactly what I said in the last article about this fire.
If you let fuel build up you create bigger hotter fires that kill trees and cause massive damage. It is evidenced by living trees with burn scars that trees can live through fires. When the fire get hot enough and enough bark is burned the tree dies. Another issue is that most tree trunks are bare a fair way up. This allows low burning fires to move through the forest and burn the brush. If these low burning fire get hot and high enough ther start burning the tree branches which also kills the trees. It also creates a crown fire which can spread rapidly and devastate large areas.
It is well known that proscribed burns are good for forests. We just are not doing them enough. We don't want to see blackened areas in our parks even though it is necessary to protect them from bigger fires.
No it is not.
The article is about autonomous ground vehicles which is why I am discussing autonomous ground vehicles and how natural systems are not suited for autonomous ground vehicles. Had the article been about autonomous flying vehicles I may have had a different opinion.
All people are not liars. (It seems funny how some people assume everyone acts like they do).
If we're going to permit hats in driver's licenses on the same basis, the answer is yes.
Sorry buy the real world is not that black and white, all or nothing. We make judgement calls all the time. There are certain part of religion we can make accommodations for, hats for example. Other parts we choose not to. Killing someone who converts from Muslim for example. No freedom is absolute. I believe that where we can make accommodations we should.
Religious freedom: You fail to understand it.
Religion: you fail to understand the concept.
That is why it is called a belief and not a fact. It is not provable and it is not disprovable. It appears that you do not consider beliefs to be important. That is a very atheist belief. Others consider beliefs to be important and believe respect for beliefs is also important leading to accommodations for people's religions beliefs.