"Only a mathematical algorithm remains in the system after registration -- not fingerprint images."
So, the images are being discarded but the algorithm is kept. And they think that can't be used to identify someone? Why do they think there's any difference between a unique fingerprint image and a unique algorithm? This system is reducing the children to a piece of data (owned by the school district?) and moving us one step closer to a more facist state.
And don't even get me started on the whole Revelation/666 issue here!
These cases look cool, but consider what that would do to your "reasonable expectation of privacy".
After visiting the ModCases site, I tried the HNN Slashbox link to "FBI Searches" and found these tidbits...
"For example, the Supreme Court has held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in property located inside a person's home, see Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980); in conversations taking place in an enclosed phone booth, see Katz, 389 U.S. at 358; and in the contents of opaque containers, see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 822-23 (1982)."
(emphasis mine)
and
"To determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information stored in a computer, it helps to treat the computer like a closed container such as a briefcase or file cabinet. The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits law enforcement from accessing and viewing information stored in a computer without a warrant if it would be prohibited from opening a closed container and examining its contents in the same situation. "
(emphasis again mine)
With these two quotes it wasn't hard for me (playing FBI-man advocate) to say to myself, "Well, with that clear window it's not a closed case anymore and therefore the owner has no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. I guess I can search/sieze it."
"And, were the net not protected by the first amendment..." When did that happen? There is no First Amendment on the Internet, anything you say or do is only with the permission of another person or organization (be it governmental or corporate). If they don't approve of your content/ideas/beliefs you WILL be censored and there is precious little you can do about it. The only 'amendment' that will allow your particular content to be accepted is the 'dollar amendment' (or in other words I'll amend my offer with more cash if you allow my content)
Slashdot Mirror
So, the images are being discarded but the algorithm is kept. And they think that can't be used to identify someone? Why do they think there's any difference between a unique fingerprint image and a unique algorithm? This system is reducing the children to a piece of data (owned by the school district?) and moving us one step closer to a more facist state.
And don't even get me started on the whole Revelation/666 issue here!
It must have worked, I just visited and saw his hit counter at 39 !! Guess \. rolled him!
Has anyone noticed that the United States is glaringly absent from the selection list?
These cases look cool, but consider what that would do to your "reasonable expectation of privacy".
After visiting the ModCases site, I tried the HNN Slashbox link to "FBI Searches" and found these tidbits...
"For example, the Supreme Court has held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in property located inside a person's home, see Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980); in conversations taking place in an enclosed phone booth, see Katz, 389 U.S. at 358; and in the contents of opaque containers, see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 822-23 (1982)." (emphasis mine)
and
"To determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information stored in a computer, it helps to treat the computer like a closed container such as a briefcase or file cabinet. The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits law enforcement from accessing and viewing information stored in a computer without a warrant if it would be prohibited from opening a closed container and examining its contents in the same situation. " (emphasis again mine)
With these two quotes it wasn't hard for me (playing FBI-man advocate) to say to myself, "Well, with that clear window it's not a closed case anymore and therefore the owner has no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. I guess I can search/sieze it."
"And, were the net not protected by the first amendment..." When did that happen? There is no First Amendment on the Internet, anything you say or do is only with the permission of another person or organization (be it governmental or corporate). If they don't approve of your content/ideas/beliefs you WILL be censored and there is precious little you can do about it. The only 'amendment' that will allow your particular content to be accepted is the 'dollar amendment' (or in other words I'll amend my offer with more cash if you allow my content)
Who was the group that acquired the property? Are they hiring?
Does this entitle everyone with Red/Green color blindness to sue for defective product?
Which of the new interactive/robotic dolls this christmas will get skinned next?