My previous company
has been selling similar technology for more than two years (I should know, I wrote a big chunk of it). They get great numbers - including some of the best results - on every standard performance test.
All this technology really works only with "cooperative subjects", i.e. people who are willing to sit in fron of a stereo camera head and get a picture taken. Hence it is great for access control (secure areas, border check), can't be fooled by a picture it's a lot more convenient - though less accurate - than iris scan or fingerprints, and doesn't have the stigma attached to the latter in public opinion.
But recognize a face in a crowd? Forget about it. And forget about somebody who's ten years older or ten pounds fatter than the key stored in your database.
Wrong. Italian courts do use legal precedents (or jurisprudence) and common social customs as authorities when deciding an issue. In fact, part of the judge's argument in dismissing the case (the bit about FIAT absurdly trying to sell a car and imposing it can't be used out of town) is based on a common notion of "absurdity". Another item of note in the ruling is the invalidation of "shrink-wrap" licenses.
However, the original poster is partially correct in saying that the Italian legal system is based on civil law, rather than common law. This implies that jurisprudence is of lesser importance in legal proceedings. Roughly speaking, the order of importance of the legal sources in a civil law system (e.g. Italy, France, Germany) is as follows (from highest to lowest): 1) Constitution and Consitutional Laws 2) National laws (passed by the national parliament) and Government Executive Orders ("Decreti Legge"). 3) Regional laws (passed by the regional parliaments) within a region's territory. 4) Government regulations 5) Jurisprudence, customs.
So, yes, Person B can be tried again the next day, in theory. In practice what happens is that, if the court (a) recognizes that the new case is *very* similar to the previous one and (b) the previous ruling is within the scope of the law, then the case will be may dismissed upon jurisprudential authority.
Slashdot Mirror
All this technology really works only with "cooperative subjects", i.e. people who are willing to sit in fron of a stereo camera head and get a picture taken. Hence it is great for access control (secure areas, border check), can't be fooled by a picture it's a lot more convenient - though less accurate - than iris scan or fingerprints, and doesn't have the stigma attached to the latter in public opinion.
But recognize a face in a crowd? Forget about it. And forget about somebody who's ten years older or ten pounds fatter than the key stored in your database.
Wrong. Italian courts do use legal precedents (or jurisprudence) and common social customs as authorities when deciding an issue. In fact, part of the
judge's argument in dismissing the case (the bit about FIAT absurdly trying to sell a car and imposing it can't be used out of town) is based on a common notion of "absurdity". Another item of note in the ruling is the invalidation of "shrink-wrap" licenses.
However, the original poster is partially correct in saying that the Italian legal system is based on civil law, rather than common law. This implies that jurisprudence is of lesser importance in legal proceedings. Roughly speaking, the order of importance of the legal sources in a civil law system (e.g. Italy, France, Germany) is as follows (from highest to lowest):
1) Constitution and Consitutional Laws
2) National laws (passed by the national parliament) and Government Executive Orders ("Decreti Legge").
3) Regional laws (passed by the regional parliaments) within a region's territory.
4) Government regulations
5) Jurisprudence, customs.
So, yes, Person B can be tried again the next day, in theory. In practice what happens is that, if the court (a) recognizes that the new case is *very* similar to the previous one and (b) the previous ruling is within the scope of the law, then the case will be may dismissed upon jurisprudential authority.