I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public.
Best I can do is give you Canada:
"The first involved police surveillance of persons suspected of engaging in games of chance, while the second dealt with surveillance of a worker on sick leave. The first case, dubbed the "Wong Affair," occurred in Ontario, and went as far as the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court determined that video surveillance is tantamount to a search, and therefore violated the clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A warrant is thus needed before this kind of surveillance can be carried out, as is the case for wire tapping."
Inept? Inept? Dear sir you shall have to take those words back! Purely on their achievement of turning Gold into Cottage Cheese shall they be known for their scientific prowess!
It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?
The difference is certainly reduced if the camera is not actively recording. However, there is a significant difference between a person either actively or inactively watching and their ability to remember what you're doing, and then later forget it if it weren't important, and the camera's ability to record the events for posterity.
The other difference is that the person viewing remotely is personally unviewable. Franz Kafka's The Trial deals with this concept--in that he is accused of a crime by a body who is anonymous, and he spends his time trying to figure out who is accusing him and why. And of course the US Constitution deals with this issue by saying the accused has the right to be confronted and know their accuser.
We use undercover agents in very limited situations. Otherwise one of the major components to liberty is that undercover surveillance is held as unprofessional, demeaning, and a tool for only very limited circumstances. In the same way you should be able to confront your accuser, you should also be able to confront your surveiller.
The UK has a fifth the population of the USA yet has 50 times less gun crime
This statistic is a little crude because it doesn't take into account very very different levels of gun ownership from place to place. For instance, guns are entirely banned in Washington DC, and DC is often the most likely place to be murdered by a gun in the US.
On the other hand, there are places here in rural Ohio which are so well armed that they could take over a latin american country, and they have not had a murder in that county since Ohio's inception (and they are not necessarily unpopulated...they often have a pretty good sized population.)
And of course there are places that are mixed. Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.
I don't believe it's the size of the space. The human brain for some reason did not want to fill in the space with anything bigger than one syllable.
That, or the brain didn't want to use hamburger, which is an odd word because it's seemingly a compound word "ham+burger." Perhaps our brain naturally thinks of that as two different words.
..I supposed it's still better than paying $2.99/minute for some telephone hintline though...
Haha. That reminds me of when I would get regularly stumped in Sierra's first Police Quest. At the time there was a 900 number you could call into to get answers, but Canada had no such thing--so there was a reagular phone line for Canadians. Since there was also no caller ID, I just called the regular line over and over again claiming I was from Canada.
I feel bad for the poor guy who had to deal with me...I think I had a $70 phone bill on an MCI card.
One of the defects of using money that is based on a commodity is that there are times in which there is not enough money in the economy, so people start hoarding it.
The Asian economic implosion in the late 1990s was caused by this--inspite of the economies going sour, caused by people not spending money, governments thought that keeping inflation down was the most important thing, so they refused to print more money, further exacerbating the problem. (Indeed, The Economist and many others continue to call for the Japanese to go hog wild printing Yen in order to give that economy a boost.)
I once read a nifty metaphor to explain this. A babysitter's club uses vouchers to get babysitting...people volunteer to babysit to get vouchers, and then the vouchers they get can be used to get free babysitting for when they wanna have an evening on the town.
At first, they only give out one free voucher. Because of that, people hoard that one voucher for when they really may need it, meaning that no one can earn any more vouchers since no one is wanting to spend their one voucher.
The solution was to print off an extra 5 free vouchers and give them to the participants. That way people were more comfortable spending the vouchers, which allows other people to earn vouchers, and then you got a little economy going on.
In the Japanese situation, the scarcity of the money means people are too uncomfortable spending it....
There are free aerial channels (noncable/nonsatellite) that are part of the "Independent" television system. They have commercials.
In addition, there are private cable/satellite services.
The BBC is entirely funded through the yearly TV license, which is assessed on every TV in the house that is used for watching the BBC (therefore British people tend to have fewer TVs, and the license is cheaper for black and white TVs, which are still available in the UK. In effect, the license is mandatory if you can watch the BBC, not necessarily if you do watch the BBC.)
Debt collection agencies already mask their online and phone identities pretty well.
True...it's ok for a debt collection agency to call you with no caller ID identity, or their real caller ID identity. Though I am not an attorney, and I don't even play one on television*, the attorney's comments at the end of the article saying that the practice of making up a fake caller ID identity would violate the fair debt practices collection act seem right on. (If you're hounded by creditors, you have a surprisingly large amount of rights, including the ability to tell them to just stop contacting you.)
*I am however an actor and I could play one on television.
That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.
Yes, but I'm concerned about photograph archival, which is a major, mostly undebated source of privacy issues, and is not an issue with the non-photo license.
(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)
With a photo license. The photograph is optional (well, was.)
Honestly, they seem a bit more relaxed about drinking laws up there in my experience.
Actually the only responsibility a company has, other than obeying the law, is to generate profit for its shareholders.
If it does something out of the goodness of its heart that costs its ahreholders money, then its been negligent.
Err...kinda. The company has the responsibility to tell shareholders what it is doing...it's entirely possible for the company to say "we are switching into social consciousness mode, at the expense of future profits...so if ya'll don't like that sell now." As long as it tells shareholders what it's doing then it can hardly be held negligent.
I find that the closeness of the swimming competitions--in that only machines can judge who is the second place person and the third place person, make the competition seem a bit on the irrelevant side. Am I the only person who wonders what the hell the difference is between a Gold and a Silver if there were only 1/100 difference in the competitor's performances?
As I said in another post, law enforcement goes ahead and checks the vehicle registration information, so anonymity at the traffic stop really isn't possible (though a photo license that only had a driver's license number could possibly have a use. In fact, here in Ohio, I've been working on getting a bill to remove your birth date and/or your home address off your license card, which is several steps closer to the photo license card that's anonyous.)
Well, I think that anonymity at the traffic stop is possible, if the vehicle registration system went anonymous as well, but that's quite a leap in complexity that I simply couldn't support at this moment. Something for the future perhaps.
As for someone stealing a non-photo license--the description is still there (eye color, weight, hair color, et cetera--actually, it was always there, no one bothered to remove it when the photo was added.) Non-photo license fraud is virtually unheard of because, other than driving, it doesn't allow you to anything else.
You have got that exactly wrong....Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.
Not true. A non-photo license has the basic description of the person (height, weight, eye color) that helps in identifying the person.
Non-photo license fraud in New Jersey is entirely unheard of--even though the document could be photocopied on a color copier. The fact is, the non-photo license is completely worthless for fraud (can't write checks with it, can't buy alcohol with it, can't take money out of bank account with it.)
Unfortunately, law enforcement usually also asks for vehicle registration information, which is always correlated to a name and an address...so the nameless photo card could work but it doesn't necessarily make a huge amount of difference.
My goal is retaining the non-photo license states as it is.
3) I think Universities are also slighly liberally biased because I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher.
I would add to this the idea that liberals seem to be less likely to take economic risks. This may indeed be rooted in that whole fear thing related to in the article. Given this premise, liberals would be more likely to stay in the educational system, sacrificing wealth for stability/modicum of happiness. Economic risk takers would take the chance and venture out into entrepreneurial world...and leave a safe but less lucrative environment.
I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.
We call those non-photo drivers licenses...you may still get one in Vermont and several Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Quebec, perhaps a few others.) You may also get one with a bona fide relgious objection in many states, but as we know, that goes back and forth.
To this day, the most non-photo licenses out there are found in New Jersey, which only recently elminated the non-photo license (or is trying to.)
I'm from Ohio, and when I've gone traveling to Europe, I've had to say "yeah, that's right... near Chicago
As an Ohioan who just spent two months in New York, I am just floored and appalled by the very bad geographical skills of the people of New York. (The famous New Yorker cover in which the rest of the United States is vaguely drawn, but 9th and 10th avenue are very specifically drawn holds true.)
Most of Ohio is about an 8 drive from New York, is entirely in the same time zone as New York and yet New Yorkers act as if the state were significantly farther west of New York than it really is. (The term "midwest" is a very unspecific term that New Yorkers seem to apply to everything west of Pennsylvania and east of Colorado...as an Ohioan, I push midwest to west of Chicago, according to the general stereotypes that people have of the "midwest." People from California though seem to push Ohio into "east" which I feel much more comfortable with (I've heard the term "near-east" which I also think is pretty good.)
Well it is public transport, certainly. However the big difference is that this system doesn't run on public transport time--it doesn't make stops that you don't need, it goes only where you want, et cetera.
It's essentially a taxi on rails and while I agree with you that it wont' entirely replace the car--it will definitely threaten buses, taxis and light rail (which are much older public transport concepts.)
My children are required to read for 30 minutes every day....Learing to enjoy reading is an aquired enjoyment.
This is of course an amusing juxtaposition, which wasn't necessarily found in your post, but was at some level implied.
My parents were both exercise freaks, and it made me hate exercise for a good portion of my life (because they made me do it. It was a form of torture for me.) God help me if they had actually required me to read...would have killed reading entirely for me I should think. (But as parents their skills were a bit lacking anyway. I often think that things came out well cuz they didn't try too hard.)
I actually do support you though (for what that's worth) I think that I felt like making a cautionary post to yours.
In a situation like this you go and pull out our cellphone (you likely have one), or if you don't have one go get another phone, and call the police.
I am semi agreeing with you, at least with the concept that pulling out your cell and threatening or seeming to call the police is a good idea.
However, actually speaking to the police is a bad idea. The issue is that police are just as likely to shoot the messenger as they are anything else--(My joke is that you could be in the back of your car being raped, and the police will come and help you, but they will also write a ticket for expired plates on your car at the same time.) If it's a true emergency go ahead and call them, but I would caution against it any other time and say that the lawyer is the way to go.
Yes... How many BMW owners don't opt for the CD Changer?
It used to be very very few. In the days I worked for BMW (2000-2001) the cost of the changer ($500) was completely taken care of by a $500 increase in the car's residual (3 series vehicles.) So those leasing a 3 series (about 80% of customers) would essentially get the changer for free. They'd be crazy not to take it.
Dunno if anything has changed, 3 series leases are much cheaper today than they were when the model was newer, and there was less competition.
In addition to not lying about the Holocaust, you left out one major thing:
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf is completely banned. Furthermore, aparently, the state of Bavaria owns the rights to Mein Kampf in most of the world except for the UK and the US.
It would seem to me that if you wanted to "retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again" you would freely allow the reading of a book that lead up to those awful atrocities, and I believe that in banning the book you only made the problem worse.
But in the US, I would like to think that we would not stand for that. Seems silly to me that a whole country is scared of a fucking book.
Ah, but they fingerprint you for a drivers' license too.
Only in five states. Most Americans have never been fingeprinted for anything.
They didn't, at one time, but now they do. Because the argument was made that, well, if we take your prints on arrest, why shouldn't we take them for a drivers license too?
Actually, if they had made that argument, no state would have license fingerprinting, since it would have made the association between being a criminal and just being a citizen needing to get a license. That's exactly the association law enforcment and DMVs wanted to avoid, because it plays into the hands of the civil liberties peeps.
The research I've done on the issue implies to me that legislatures were lied and hoodwinked concerning the fingerprinting requirement--vendors and DMVs said things like "it'll prevent fraud" and no one actually questioned them, because they never said how it would.
Interestingly, I was just in the San Francisco/bay area...and yes, the mountains are very pretty.
But I missed the clouds so desperately. Clouds are like mountains of the sky, and better than mountains, they are dynamic and if you just wait 15 minutes, new clouds will take their place, and their shapes are fascinating and compelling.
California had no clouds, and I became bored of the static mountainscape.
Therefore the clouds of my beloved Ohio kick the ass of the mountains of California.
But honestly What you do on the outside of your house is for the public view. If you dont want your house to been seen you buy a secluded woods area and build your house underground.
Hence the saying "only the rich will have privacy."
Slashdot Mirror
I know of no protection or right that affords people the right to know who's looking at them in public.
:http://www.forum.umontreal.ca/forum_express/pages _a/law.htm
Best I can do is give you Canada:
"The first involved police surveillance of persons suspected of engaging in games of chance, while the second dealt with surveillance of a worker on sick leave. The first case, dubbed the "Wong Affair," occurred in Ontario, and went as far as the Supreme Court. In 1990, the Court determined that video surveillance is tantamount to a search, and therefore violated the clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A warrant is thus needed before this kind of surveillance can be carried out, as is the case for wire tapping."
from
...they may have been somewhat inept...
Inept? Inept? Dear sir you shall have to take those words back! Purely on their achievement of turning Gold into Cottage Cheese shall they be known for their scientific prowess!
It is merely the fact that a person isn't physically there viewing you, but viewing you through a remote connection. What is the difference between that, and if the person were physically there?
The difference is certainly reduced if the camera is not actively recording. However, there is a significant difference between a person either actively or inactively watching and their ability to remember what you're doing, and then later forget it if it weren't important, and the camera's ability to record the events for posterity.
The other difference is that the person viewing remotely is personally unviewable. Franz Kafka's The Trial deals with this concept--in that he is accused of a crime by a body who is anonymous, and he spends his time trying to figure out who is accusing him and why. And of course the US Constitution deals with this issue by saying the accused has the right to be confronted and know their accuser.
We use undercover agents in very limited situations. Otherwise one of the major components to liberty is that undercover surveillance is held as unprofessional, demeaning, and a tool for only very limited circumstances. In the same way you should be able to confront your accuser, you should also be able to confront your surveiller.
The UK has a fifth the population of the USA yet has 50 times less gun crime
This statistic is a little crude because it doesn't take into account very very different levels of gun ownership from place to place. For instance, guns are entirely banned in Washington DC, and DC is often the most likely place to be murdered by a gun in the US.
On the other hand, there are places here in rural Ohio which are so well armed that they could take over a latin american country, and they have not had a murder in that county since Ohio's inception (and they are not necessarily unpopulated...they often have a pretty good sized population.)
And of course there are places that are mixed. Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.
I don't believe it's the size of the space. The human brain for some reason did not want to fill in the space with anything bigger than one syllable.
That, or the brain didn't want to use hamburger, which is an odd word because it's seemingly a compound word "ham+burger." Perhaps our brain naturally thinks of that as two different words.
(I thought "hammer" myself.)
..I supposed it's still better than paying $2.99/minute for some telephone hintline though...
Haha. That reminds me of when I would get regularly stumped in Sierra's first Police Quest. At the time there was a 900 number you could call into to get answers, but Canada had no such thing--so there was a reagular phone line for Canadians. Since there was also no caller ID, I just called the regular line over and over again claiming I was from Canada.
I feel bad for the poor guy who had to deal with me...I think I had a $70 phone bill on an MCI card.
One of the defects of using money that is based on a commodity is that there are times in which there is not enough money in the economy, so people start hoarding it.
The Asian economic implosion in the late 1990s was caused by this--inspite of the economies going sour, caused by people not spending money, governments thought that keeping inflation down was the most important thing, so they refused to print more money, further exacerbating the problem. (Indeed, The Economist and many others continue to call for the Japanese to go hog wild printing Yen in order to give that economy a boost.)
I once read a nifty metaphor to explain this. A babysitter's club uses vouchers to get babysitting...people volunteer to babysit to get vouchers, and then the vouchers they get can be used to get free babysitting for when they wanna have an evening on the town.
At first, they only give out one free voucher. Because of that, people hoard that one voucher for when they really may need it, meaning that no one can earn any more vouchers since no one is wanting to spend their one voucher.
The solution was to print off an extra 5 free vouchers and give them to the participants. That way people were more comfortable spending the vouchers, which allows other people to earn vouchers, and then you got a little economy going on.
In the Japanese situation, the scarcity of the money means people are too uncomfortable spending it....
There are free aerial channels (noncable/nonsatellite) that are part of the "Independent" television system. They have commercials.
In addition, there are private cable/satellite services.
The BBC is entirely funded through the yearly TV license, which is assessed on every TV in the house that is used for watching the BBC (therefore British people tend to have fewer TVs, and the license is cheaper for black and white TVs, which are still available in the UK. In effect, the license is mandatory if you can watch the BBC, not necessarily if you do watch the BBC.)
The BBC does not have commercials.
*waits for someone from England to correct him*
Debt collection agencies already mask their online and phone identities pretty well.
True...it's ok for a debt collection agency to call you with no caller ID identity, or their real caller ID identity. Though I am not an attorney, and I don't even play one on television*, the attorney's comments at the end of the article saying that the practice of making up a fake caller ID identity would violate the fair debt practices collection act seem right on. (If you're hounded by creditors, you have a surprisingly large amount of rights, including the ability to tell them to just stop contacting you.)
*I am however an actor and I could play one on television.
That would all be true of a photo-only (or photo plus description, but still no name and address) license. The person depicted would be certified to drive, but not be associated with any bank account or have any particular age.
Yes, but I'm concerned about photograph archival, which is a major, mostly undebated source of privacy issues, and is not an issue with the non-photo license.
(So how does a barely-21 kid in New Jersey buy booze?)
With a photo license. The photograph is optional (well, was.)
Honestly, they seem a bit more relaxed about drinking laws up there in my experience.
Actually the only responsibility a company has, other than obeying the law, is to generate profit for its shareholders.
If it does something out of the goodness of its heart that costs its ahreholders money, then its been negligent.
Err...kinda. The company has the responsibility to tell shareholders what it is doing...it's entirely possible for the company to say "we are switching into social consciousness mode, at the expense of future profits...so if ya'll don't like that sell now." As long as it tells shareholders what it's doing then it can hardly be held negligent.
I find that the closeness of the swimming competitions--in that only machines can judge who is the second place person and the third place person, make the competition seem a bit on the irrelevant side. Am I the only person who wonders what the hell the difference is between a Gold and a Silver if there were only 1/100 difference in the competitor's performances?
As I said in another post, law enforcement goes ahead and checks the vehicle registration information, so anonymity at the traffic stop really isn't possible (though a photo license that only had a driver's license number could possibly have a use. In fact, here in Ohio, I've been working on getting a bill to remove your birth date and/or your home address off your license card, which is several steps closer to the photo license card that's anonyous.)
Well, I think that anonymity at the traffic stop is possible, if the vehicle registration system went anonymous as well, but that's quite a leap in complexity that I simply couldn't support at this moment. Something for the future perhaps.
As for someone stealing a non-photo license--the description is still there (eye color, weight, hair color, et cetera--actually, it was always there, no one bothered to remove it when the photo was added.) Non-photo license fraud is virtually unheard of because, other than driving, it doesn't allow you to anything else.
For more info, check out my SDT whitepaper.
You have got that exactly wrong....Hence it doesn't say whether you are licensed to drive, unless you establish your claim to that name and address. That's less privacy for you, and less security, too, since your license is more worth stealing.
Not true. A non-photo license has the basic description of the person (height, weight, eye color) that helps in identifying the person.
Non-photo license fraud in New Jersey is entirely unheard of--even though the document could be photocopied on a color copier. The fact is, the non-photo license is completely worthless for fraud (can't write checks with it, can't buy alcohol with it, can't take money out of bank account with it.)
For a bigger discussion on this issue, see my Security Document Theory whitepaper.
Unfortunately, law enforcement usually also asks for vehicle registration information, which is always correlated to a name and an address...so the nameless photo card could work but it doesn't necessarily make a huge amount of difference.
My goal is retaining the non-photo license states as it is.
3) I think Universities are also slighly liberally biased because I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher.
I would add to this the idea that liberals seem to be less likely to take economic risks. This may indeed be rooted in that whole fear thing related to in the article. Given this premise, liberals would be more likely to stay in the educational system, sacrificing wealth for stability/modicum of happiness. Economic risk takers would take the chance and venture out into entrepreneurial world...and leave a safe but less lucrative environment.
I've always liked John's idea of a driver's license which was NOT an ID. It would prove that the person presenting it was the person who had passed the driver's test, but would not identify that person further.
We call those non-photo drivers licenses...you may still get one in Vermont and several Canadian provinces (New Brunswick and Quebec, perhaps a few others.) You may also get one with a bona fide relgious objection in many states, but as we know, that goes back and forth.
To this day, the most non-photo licenses out there are found in New Jersey, which only recently elminated the non-photo license (or is trying to.)
I'm from Ohio, and when I've gone traveling to Europe, I've had to say "yeah, that's right... near Chicago
As an Ohioan who just spent two months in New York, I am just floored and appalled by the very bad geographical skills of the people of New York. (The famous New Yorker cover in which the rest of the United States is vaguely drawn, but 9th and 10th avenue are very specifically drawn holds true.)
Most of Ohio is about an 8 drive from New York, is entirely in the same time zone as New York and yet New Yorkers act as if the state were significantly farther west of New York than it really is. (The term "midwest" is a very unspecific term that New Yorkers seem to apply to everything west of Pennsylvania and east of Colorado...as an Ohioan, I push midwest to west of Chicago, according to the general stereotypes that people have of the "midwest." People from California though seem to push Ohio into "east" which I feel much more comfortable with (I've heard the term "near-east" which I also think is pretty good.)
So bad geography applies to Americans as well.
However this is pretty much public transport.
Well it is public transport, certainly. However the big difference is that this system doesn't run on public transport time--it doesn't make stops that you don't need, it goes only where you want, et cetera.
It's essentially a taxi on rails and while I agree with you that it wont' entirely replace the car--it will definitely threaten buses, taxis and light rail (which are much older public transport concepts.)
My children are required to read for 30 minutes every day....Learing to enjoy reading is an aquired enjoyment.
This is of course an amusing juxtaposition, which wasn't necessarily found in your post, but was at some level implied.
My parents were both exercise freaks, and it made me hate exercise for a good portion of my life (because they made me do it. It was a form of torture for me.) God help me if they had actually required me to read...would have killed reading entirely for me I should think. (But as parents their skills were a bit lacking anyway. I often think that things came out well cuz they didn't try too hard.)
I actually do support you though (for what that's worth) I think that I felt like making a cautionary post to yours.
In a situation like this you go and pull out our cellphone (you likely have one), or if you don't have one go get another phone, and call the police.
I am semi agreeing with you, at least with the concept that pulling out your cell and threatening or seeming to call the police is a good idea.
However, actually speaking to the police is a bad idea. The issue is that police are just as likely to shoot the messenger as they are anything else--(My joke is that you could be in the back of your car being raped, and the police will come and help you, but they will also write a ticket for expired plates on your car at the same time.) If it's a true emergency go ahead and call them, but I would caution against it any other time and say that the lawyer is the way to go.
Yes... How many BMW owners don't opt for the CD Changer?
It used to be very very few. In the days I worked for BMW (2000-2001) the cost of the changer ($500) was completely taken care of by a $500 increase in the car's residual (3 series vehicles.) So those leasing a 3 series (about 80% of customers) would essentially get the changer for free. They'd be crazy not to take it.
Dunno if anything has changed, 3 series leases are much cheaper today than they were when the model was newer, and there was less competition.
In addition to not lying about the Holocaust, you left out one major thing:
Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf is completely banned. Furthermore, aparently, the state of Bavaria owns the rights to Mein Kampf in most of the world except for the UK and the US.
It would seem to me that if you wanted to "retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again" you would freely allow the reading of a book that lead up to those awful atrocities, and I believe that in banning the book you only made the problem worse.
But in the US, I would like to think that we would not stand for that. Seems silly to me that a whole country is scared of a fucking book.
Ah, but they fingerprint you for a drivers' license too.
Only in five states. Most Americans have never been fingeprinted for anything.
They didn't, at one time, but now they do. Because the argument was made that, well, if we take your prints on arrest, why shouldn't we take them for a drivers license too?
Actually, if they had made that argument, no state would have license fingerprinting, since it would have made the association between being a criminal and just being a citizen needing to get a license. That's exactly the association law enforcment and DMVs wanted to avoid, because it plays into the hands of the civil liberties peeps.
The research I've done on the issue implies to me that legislatures were lied and hoodwinked concerning the fingerprinting requirement--vendors and DMVs said things like "it'll prevent fraud" and no one actually questioned them, because they never said how it would.
Yes, geologically, Ohio is flat and boring.
Interestingly, I was just in the San Francisco/bay area...and yes, the mountains are very pretty.
But I missed the clouds so desperately. Clouds are like mountains of the sky, and better than mountains, they are dynamic and if you just wait 15 minutes, new clouds will take their place, and their shapes are fascinating and compelling.
California had no clouds, and I became bored of the static mountainscape.
Therefore the clouds of my beloved Ohio kick the ass of the mountains of California.
But honestly What you do on the outside of your house is for the public view. If you dont want your house to been seen you buy a secluded woods area and build your house underground.
Hence the saying "only the rich will have privacy."