So you're saying that you spent 2 hours acquiring and gathering hardware, assembling hardware, installing the OS, installing & configuring the software, networking the box, and settting it up in your living room w/ a remote control?
If so, then you should do that for a living. But I really doubt it. Maybe you spent 2 hours on the actual myth-config part of that, but you have to include everything else.
All I had to do was place the order (1-click) on Amazon, open the box, plug in the wireless usb adapter, hookup the AV, and turn on my TV. 15 minutes of self config and updates later, and I have the Tivo ready to go.
Like I said, I understand the merits of building your own, but in this particular case, an OTS solution is--IMO--the best way to go. I mean, you can use a small form factor linux box as a wireless access point, too. A friend of mine set one up a few years ago when WiFi was still rather new. But it's a lot easier to pick one up from the store, plug in 2 wires, and relax.
All i'm saying is that if I were to recommend a DVR to somebody--even a big computer geek like myself--it would be a very capable OTS solution.
And I've never seen Myth up close and personal, but I have a hard time imagining that its UI is better than TiVo. It might not be much worse (although, from the generic DVRs I've seen out there, it could be a _LOT_ worse) but I doubt it's better.
Yes, it did. How many copy protected CDs were sold last year? I buy maybe 20 a year in actual CD form and I've never come across one. That's a relatively small sample, but copy protected CDs are so rare that I don't even look to make sure that it's not DRMd before I buy it.
A marginally thicker phone that would include a slide piece exposing a keypad wouldn't damage the total experience of the device at all. In fact, many of the "artist mockups" of iPhone--search google images--were exactly that. Whether or not those were actually developed inside apple is irrelevant.
And as for your "most dialing.." thing, well, that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that I can control a $20 phone--including navigate thru menus as long as I know the 3 or 4 most commonly used sequences--without having to look at it. But this $3300 miracle of usability would force me to look away from the road.
It's a great device, awesome software, and it will really raise the bar for all cellphone makers (you can count on that), but it's far from perfect, especially where the dial-pad is concerned.
It's not about tactile response. It's about tactile feel. Being able to hit a five, move you finger to the next button, hit a 6, etc, without having to look.
If you think the way to prevent a 'police state' is by preventing the government from using technology, I have to say, I think you're wrong.
You should try to accept that technology is increasing at an ever increasing clip. This is good, and it is bad. The government gets surveillance equipment, and you get no cost super encryption, for example.
One problem I have with your argument is that you seem to not have an acceptance of the differences between public and private. I *do* have a rightful expectation of privacy on my telephone in my own home. It is wrong for that call to be screened. The NSA wiretapping program, I believe, is unconstitutional.
But by bringing up the wiretapping in the same breath as the lawful use of survelience cameras, I think you undermine the case against the wiretapping. Those two should not be grouped together. An appropriate grouping would be if they wanted to point surveliance cameras thru your windows into your house.
And I think you miss the point about the mom/sister rape comment. Cameras have proven to be a very effective deterrent. So much so that the market for realistic looking fake cameras is very large, let alone actual surveliance systems. Somebody is less likely to mug my sister walking down a street at night if he can see a camera mounted on every 3rd lamp post. It will not prevent all crime, but I do have faith in it as a deterrent.
And as for your database issues, well, once again, it's a trade off. Look at the benefit of technology here: nearly free crystal clear phone calls around the globe, amazingly fast air travel to any destination in the entire world, a global internetwork that lets you purchase the rarest of treasures from the most obscure sources and pay for them without ever meeting them, calling them, or giving them cash. All of these things are amazingly valuable to all of us, and to our modern society. The downside of this is that these things are easily trackable and easily tracked.
But what harm is a DB full of transaction/flight/phone/video rental information doing you? Even if you're unlucky enough to have a profile that causes your name to appear when running their profiling/analysis queries on the data you still probably would never know it. But the chances are huge that you'd never even make that list.
A police state doesn't require technology, and technology does not, in my opinion, encourage a police state. Databases of financial records don't harm you. Even if your whereabouts are tracked electronically throughout the entire day, what harm is that to you? It's all about how that data is used. And, I suppose, what you're up to personally that you want to keep to yourself (not accusing you or anything).
Look at Star Trek, which i think everyone can agree is a good example of a future that we'd like to see for our great great great grandchildren. The computer tracks the whereabouts of everybody. Every single conversation anyone ever has can be recorded by the ubiquitous computer. But nobody cries foul of that as a 'police state.'
I agree that a distrust of government is healthy. But there's a difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. And judging by your comments, if Skeptic is 1 and Paranoid is 10, you're surely tipping past 5, on your way to 6 or 7.
I will say, though, that Skeptic > Paranoid > Docile. So if I had to choose between paranoia and complete and unquestioned loyalty, I would chose paranoia in a second.
Sorry, I call BS on your prices. Unless they were hot.
Check usenet for examples.
For instance, in this thread somebody asks the price of a monitor very similar to the one I purchased. Post was from May, 1995, and the price quoted at CDW was $640.
There is no tactile feel. I can dial a $20 cell phone without having to see or hear it. I've used touchscreen keypads on existing phones already and you have to look when you dial.
And you make it sounds like Apple invented the keypad-less phone. Did you happen to miss the dozen phones that have been out for years now that lack a dial pad?
While I'm sure to get modded -5 EvilAssHole for this, I'm going to do it anyway.
A coworker of mine runs a Myth box. Practically every day for the first month or so after he set it up he'd give me an update on the tinkering he had to do the previous night. Now, at least once a month it goes offline for some reason. I'm not a linux guy, nor a mythTV guy, but it seems like he's got problems with TV listings mostly, although issues with drivers, audio sync, and a smattering of other issues have also been recurring problems. He's our linux admin and he does great at work, so I don't think this is an aptitude issue.
Meanwhile, I spent $500 for my Tivo and all I have to do is sit back and relax. I can, of course, record shows thru an internet connection, stream to other TVs/Comps in the house, and use it for pics and mp3 audio as well.
So if your average linux geek makes $50k a year (total guess), spending more than 20 hours on the box over its entire lifespan is a waste of money.
I do understand that the hobbyist enjoys the tinkering, but it's important for you to understand that it's _only_ the hobbyist that enjoys it. Everyone else just wants it to work.
Here's an excerpt from a usenet post in 1995. Just FYI..
OP: Can anyone recommend a 21 inch monintor and video card to do 1600x1200 in 24 bit color. My guess is that I'd need 6 or 8 megs of video ram. The monitor should be able to do 1600x1200 at 70hz.
Answer: You will need 8 - 10 Mb of VRAM for that. Salient Systems Corporation has a board called the AT3000 which supports up to 10Mb of VRAM. Our home page is http:/www.salientsys.com. We have loads of customers, mostly in medical imaging and image processing, who run this card at high res/high color.
What application are you running?
[...]
I forgot to answer the monitor portion of your question. You will need a monitor capable of about 200Mhz. Hitachi makes a really nice 21" flat-screen which we use. The Accuvue HM-4521-D. It's really bueno and can handle the bandwidth. Colors and images are sharp as well. The AT3000 will sync just about anything but Hitachi seems to have the edge on big-screen monitors.
Viewsonic makes one also but I don't believe the quality is there. The Hitachi costs around $2,200 I believe.
There you have it. That's about $2700 in 2006 dollars.
Not to mention the games themselves. I'm not a huge gamer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm trying to imagine playing Doom circa 1995 at 1600x1200 and the way the game was designed, it seems impossible.
"you would have also had a $1,000 monitor."
In 1996 I bought a CTX 800x600 monitor for about $700. So you're probably talking considerably north of $1000.
It was a hyperbole that someone tried to defend as fact.
The thing that worries me is that if law enforcement doesn't embrace new technology, how long until it falls far behind what's needed to do their job?
And on a personal level I disagree. Why do you care if you walk past 20 cameras a day that screen you against a list of criminals? Why does that bother you?
If cameras in public places prevent my sister or mother from being mugged or raped in some back alley somewhere, then that is worth it's weight in gold. It, again, comes down to privacy. I have no expectation of privacy when walking around in my city. I do have an expectation of anonymity but I also know that I don't have a _right_ to it.
In the united states, a police officer cannot follow you for an extended period of time (more than a couple minutes) without specific intention to stop you.
That is, if he's merely waiting for backup or something, he can follow you in perpetuity. However, if you merely "look suspicious" or something then he can only follow you for a short while. In my state, the law is 3 turns. There is also a statutory limit to the amount of time--even if you don't make a turn (say you're on a highway)--which is set at a "reasonable" amount of time.
If you don't consider being followed by a police officer to be an intrusion, then forgive me when I say that I hope your mentality stays in your country, whatever one that may be.
"Perhaps you can't see a distinction between 'is similar to other people who have commited a particular crime' and 'have proven themselves willing to commit a particular crime', but I can."
Are you actually saying that if someone commits a crime--like speeding--it's OK to suspect them of speeding in the future? That it's OK to give them more scrutiny because they are a "known speeder?" So what you're basically saying, is that everybody who's commited a crime and completes their punishment is effectively on probation? That's absurd.
Profiling is illegal in America. And no matter what you claim, predicting that somebody will commit a crime is profiling. And that's wrong whether you base it on the color of his skin, the model of his car, his style of music, his credit history, his employment history, his sexual history or his criminal record. If somebody commits a crime and the court puts them on probation or parole, that is different. But if you've paid your bid to king and country, your rights shouldn't be abridged.
1. Franklin did not write the book, only published it 2. Franklin said he only wrote a few remarks that were credited to the Penn. Assembly 3. The letter in which the phrase appeared used archaic typography 4. franklin wrote in 1783 (w/o the archaic 's'): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
And then, there is one sentence that says "evidence points to Franklin"
My point is that anyone could have written the "evidence points to" line. Hell, i could have added that myself 30 minutes before posting. But the actual evidence listed certainly does not.
Seriously, this is exactly what I meant. A "profile" of a likely speeder would almost surely include "has gotten speeding tickets before."
If I've had a DUI, and if I've completed my punishment, it *is* an intrusion to be followed by police officers.
"Most crime is comitted by repeat offenders."
This line of your proves to me that you've blurred the line in your head of what is and what is not profiling. This is no different than saying "Most crime is committed by people with liberal bumper stickers."
And, in case you're not familiar, a cop cannot just follow you without cause. At a certain point--which varies by jurisdiction--they must pull you over or move on to their next mark.
In summary, you offered nothing of substance or fact to this conversation whatsoever.
Yes, exactly. My thinking is that there's two distinct problems here.
1. A dummy terminal with nothing but a tetris game inside and SD card compiling lists of PINS and Acct Numbers
and
2. A MITM attack against an otherwise functional terminal.
Upon first reading, I understood your solution to solve the second problem. My solution was intended to solve the first. Together, though, maybe we're on to something.
"I do have a problem with them driving down the road scanning every plate in sight. It is an intrusion. You are just rationalizing it because "driving is a privilege". Why is scanning my license plate any different from scanning my facial features and comparing them to DMV ID photos to see if I'm wanted for anything? Cuz that'll be coming next as technology improves. Next you'll say that going out in public also a "privilege"?"
"Why is scanning my license plate any different from scanning my facial features and comparing them to DMV ID photos to see if I'm wanted for anything?"
Assuming they look at you as you pass by doing your normal business, and assuming that the picture they compare you to is one they have on file in their own system, there is *nothing* wrong with this. Now, if they have to ask for your ID, or if they somehow interrupt your normal activity so they can get a good look at you, then it is an intrusion and it is a problem.
Next you'll say that going out in public also a "privilege"?"
No, but I will say that when you go out in PUBLIC you have no reasonable expectation of PRIVACY. If you want to keep something PRIVATE -- Your face, your license plate number, your finger prints, etc, I suggest that you keep those things private. People have a right to LOOK at anything they want to look at in public spaces. This right extends to the state.
And in my opinion, the best way to prevent a far-right 1984 is not to be as far left as possible. It's to be a pragmatist. When you have opinions like "no dirty copper has a right to look me in the kisser" it taints your other ideas without concern about their specific merits.
I mean, you're entitled to your opinion (obviously) but my POV is that you're actually harming what you're trying to protect.
But the thing is that it will narrow the dataset of, say, 1 BN people down to a handful of "maybes" that can then be screened.
Besides, I haven't thought it out, but I think the reality of fingerprint matching doesn't reduce to the "number of pixels must equal number of people." Wouldn't it actually be the number of permutations possible from X pixels must be equal to the number of people?
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that you spent 2 hours acquiring and gathering hardware, assembling hardware, installing the OS, installing & configuring the software, networking the box, and settting it up in your living room w/ a remote control?
If so, then you should do that for a living. But I really doubt it. Maybe you spent 2 hours on the actual myth-config part of that, but you have to include everything else.
All I had to do was place the order (1-click) on Amazon, open the box, plug in the wireless usb adapter, hookup the AV, and turn on my TV. 15 minutes of self config and updates later, and I have the Tivo ready to go.
Like I said, I understand the merits of building your own, but in this particular case, an OTS solution is--IMO--the best way to go. I mean, you can use a small form factor linux box as a wireless access point, too. A friend of mine set one up a few years ago when WiFi was still rather new. But it's a lot easier to pick one up from the store, plug in 2 wires, and relax.
All i'm saying is that if I were to recommend a DVR to somebody--even a big computer geek like myself--it would be a very capable OTS solution.
And I've never seen Myth up close and personal, but I have a hard time imagining that its UI is better than TiVo. It might not be much worse (although, from the generic DVRs I've seen out there, it could be a _LOT_ worse) but I doubt it's better.
Yes, it did. How many copy protected CDs were sold last year? I buy maybe 20 a year in actual CD form and I've never come across one. That's a relatively small sample, but copy protected CDs are so rare that I don't even look to make sure that it's not DRMd before I buy it.
"You'd prefer a bigger phone?"
A marginally thicker phone that would include a slide piece exposing a keypad wouldn't damage the total experience of the device at all. In fact, many of the "artist mockups" of iPhone--search google images--were exactly that. Whether or not those were actually developed inside apple is irrelevant.
And as for your "most dialing.." thing, well, that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that I can control a $20 phone--including navigate thru menus as long as I know the 3 or 4 most commonly used sequences--without having to look at it. But this $3300 miracle of usability would force me to look away from the road.
It's a great device, awesome software, and it will really raise the bar for all cellphone makers (you can count on that), but it's far from perfect, especially where the dial-pad is concerned.
Exactly. The driving thing is what I was thinking of too.
It's not about tactile response. It's about tactile feel. Being able to hit a five, move you finger to the next button, hit a 6, etc, without having to look.
Riiiight. Everyone on Usenet got ripped off.... ..... If only they were as smart as you.
Sure.
If you think the way to prevent a 'police state' is by preventing the government from using technology, I have to say, I think you're wrong.
You should try to accept that technology is increasing at an ever increasing clip. This is good, and it is bad. The government gets surveillance equipment, and you get no cost super encryption, for example.
One problem I have with your argument is that you seem to not have an acceptance of the differences between public and private. I *do* have a rightful expectation of privacy on my telephone in my own home. It is wrong for that call to be screened. The NSA wiretapping program, I believe, is unconstitutional.
But by bringing up the wiretapping in the same breath as the lawful use of survelience cameras, I think you undermine the case against the wiretapping. Those two should not be grouped together. An appropriate grouping would be if they wanted to point surveliance cameras thru your windows into your house.
And I think you miss the point about the mom/sister rape comment. Cameras have proven to be a very effective deterrent. So much so that the market for realistic looking fake cameras is very large, let alone actual surveliance systems. Somebody is less likely to mug my sister walking down a street at night if he can see a camera mounted on every 3rd lamp post. It will not prevent all crime, but I do have faith in it as a deterrent.
And as for your database issues, well, once again, it's a trade off. Look at the benefit of technology here: nearly free crystal clear phone calls around the globe, amazingly fast air travel to any destination in the entire world, a global internetwork that lets you purchase the rarest of treasures from the most obscure sources and pay for them without ever meeting them, calling them, or giving them cash. All of these things are amazingly valuable to all of us, and to our modern society. The downside of this is that these things are easily trackable and easily tracked.
But what harm is a DB full of transaction/flight/phone/video rental information doing you? Even if you're unlucky enough to have a profile that causes your name to appear when running their profiling/analysis queries on the data you still probably would never know it. But the chances are huge that you'd never even make that list.
A police state doesn't require technology, and technology does not, in my opinion, encourage a police state. Databases of financial records don't harm you. Even if your whereabouts are tracked electronically throughout the entire day, what harm is that to you? It's all about how that data is used. And, I suppose, what you're up to personally that you want to keep to yourself (not accusing you or anything).
Look at Star Trek, which i think everyone can agree is a good example of a future that we'd like to see for our great great great grandchildren. The computer tracks the whereabouts of everybody. Every single conversation anyone ever has can be recorded by the ubiquitous computer. But nobody cries foul of that as a 'police state.'
I agree that a distrust of government is healthy. But there's a difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. And judging by your comments, if Skeptic is 1 and Paranoid is 10, you're surely tipping past 5, on your way to 6 or 7.
I will say, though, that Skeptic > Paranoid > Docile. So if I had to choose between paranoia and complete and unquestioned loyalty, I would chose paranoia in a second.
Sorry, I call BS on your prices. Unless they were hot.
t ers.monitors/browse_thread/thread/eb455bd15c9ddba6 /4d31b2e584112c96?lnk=st&q=&rnum=6#4d31b2e584112c9 6
Check usenet for examples.
For instance, in this thread somebody asks the price of a monitor very similar to the one I purchased. Post was from May, 1995, and the price quoted at CDW was $640.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.forsale.compu
There are a ton of examples like this. Set the date-range criteria in advanced groups search and type in: monitor price.
I swear, it's the strangest thing. When I ran this guys post thru an MD5 algorithm, the hash it returned was "fanboi"
Ah, the mysteries and miracles of one-way hashing.
Touchscreen Keypads Suck. Horribly.
There is no tactile feel. I can dial a $20 cell phone without having to see or hear it. I've used touchscreen keypads on existing phones already and you have to look when you dial.
And you make it sounds like Apple invented the keypad-less phone. Did you happen to miss the dozen phones that have been out for years now that lack a dial pad?
Slashdot: Pedantry for Nerds. Mostly Blather.
Seriously: if people can't return it, they will take it on the chin and then _never buy another one ever again_
Either way, the GPs point is valid.
While I'm sure to get modded -5 EvilAssHole for this, I'm going to do it anyway.
A coworker of mine runs a Myth box. Practically every day for the first month or so after he set it up he'd give me an update on the tinkering he had to do the previous night. Now, at least once a month it goes offline for some reason. I'm not a linux guy, nor a mythTV guy, but it seems like he's got problems with TV listings mostly, although issues with drivers, audio sync, and a smattering of other issues have also been recurring problems. He's our linux admin and he does great at work, so I don't think this is an aptitude issue.
Meanwhile, I spent $500 for my Tivo and all I have to do is sit back and relax. I can, of course, record shows thru an internet connection, stream to other TVs/Comps in the house, and use it for pics and mp3 audio as well.
So if your average linux geek makes $50k a year (total guess), spending more than 20 hours on the box over its entire lifespan is a waste of money.
I do understand that the hobbyist enjoys the tinkering, but it's important for you to understand that it's _only_ the hobbyist that enjoys it. Everyone else just wants it to work.
Here's an excerpt from a usenet post in 1995. Just FYI..
OP:
Can anyone recommend a 21 inch monintor and video card to do 1600x1200 in
24 bit color. My guess is that I'd need 6 or 8 megs of video ram. The monitor
should be able to do 1600x1200 at 70hz.
Answer:
You will need 8 - 10 Mb of VRAM for that. Salient Systems Corporation has
a board called the AT3000 which supports up to 10Mb of VRAM. Our home
page is http:/www.salientsys.com. We have loads of customers, mostly in
medical imaging and image processing, who run this card at high res/high
color.
What application are you running?
[...]
I forgot to answer the monitor portion of your question. You will need a
monitor capable of about 200Mhz. Hitachi makes a really nice 21"
flat-screen which we use. The Accuvue HM-4521-D. It's really bueno and
can handle the bandwidth. Colors and images are sharp as well. The AT3000
will sync just about anything but Hitachi seems to have the edge on
big-screen monitors.
Viewsonic makes one also but I don't believe the quality is there. The
Hitachi costs around $2,200 I believe.
There you have it. That's about $2700 in 2006 dollars.
Not to mention the games themselves. I'm not a huge gamer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm trying to imagine playing Doom circa 1995 at 1600x1200 and the way the game was designed, it seems impossible.
"you would have also had a $1,000 monitor."
In 1996 I bought a CTX 800x600 monitor for about $700. So you're probably talking considerably north of $1000.
It was a hyperbole that someone tried to defend as fact.
Yes, I see your point.
The thing that worries me is that if law enforcement doesn't embrace new technology, how long until it falls far behind what's needed to do their job?
And on a personal level I disagree. Why do you care if you walk past 20 cameras a day that screen you against a list of criminals? Why does that bother you?
If cameras in public places prevent my sister or mother from being mugged or raped in some back alley somewhere, then that is worth it's weight in gold. It, again, comes down to privacy. I have no expectation of privacy when walking around in my city. I do have an expectation of anonymity but I also know that I don't have a _right_ to it.
In the united states, a police officer cannot follow you for an extended period of time (more than a couple minutes) without specific intention to stop you.
That is, if he's merely waiting for backup or something, he can follow you in perpetuity. However, if you merely "look suspicious" or something then he can only follow you for a short while. In my state, the law is 3 turns. There is also a statutory limit to the amount of time--even if you don't make a turn (say you're on a highway)--which is set at a "reasonable" amount of time.
If you don't consider being followed by a police officer to be an intrusion, then forgive me when I say that I hope your mentality stays in your country, whatever one that may be.
"Perhaps you can't see a distinction between 'is similar to other people who have commited a particular crime' and 'have proven themselves willing to commit a particular crime', but I can."
Are you actually saying that if someone commits a crime--like speeding--it's OK to suspect them of speeding in the future? That it's OK to give them more scrutiny because they are a "known speeder?" So what you're basically saying, is that everybody who's commited a crime and completes their punishment is effectively on probation? That's absurd.
Profiling is illegal in America. And no matter what you claim, predicting that somebody will commit a crime is profiling. And that's wrong whether you base it on the color of his skin, the model of his car, his style of music, his credit history, his employment history, his sexual history or his criminal record. If somebody commits a crime and the court puts them on probation or parole, that is different. But if you've paid your bid to king and country, your rights shouldn't be abridged.
Here is the excerpt. The only facts in this are:
1. Franklin did not write the book, only published it
2. Franklin said he only wrote a few remarks that were credited to the Penn. Assembly
3. The letter in which the phrase appeared used archaic typography
4. franklin wrote in 1783 (w/o the archaic 's'): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
And then, there is one sentence that says "evidence points to Franklin"
My point is that anyone could have written the "evidence points to" line. Hell, i could have added that myself 30 minutes before posting. But the actual evidence listed certainly does not.
And thus the eternal problem with Wikipedia.
holy crap.
I didn't even notice that.
"Iv'e been wanting this for a while, and I've yet to see an attack against it."
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but do you think that has anything to do with the fact that it doesn't actually exist?
Thank you for the definition of profiling!
Seriously, this is exactly what I meant. A "profile" of a likely speeder would almost surely include "has gotten speeding tickets before."
If I've had a DUI, and if I've completed my punishment, it *is* an intrusion to be followed by police officers.
"Most crime is comitted by repeat offenders."
This line of your proves to me that you've blurred the line in your head of what is and what is not profiling. This is no different than saying "Most crime is committed by people with liberal bumper stickers."
And, in case you're not familiar, a cop cannot just follow you without cause. At a certain point--which varies by jurisdiction--they must pull you over or move on to their next mark.
In summary, you offered nothing of substance or fact to this conversation whatsoever.
Like I said earlier, I think forgot about the whole permutations thing.
Yes, exactly. My thinking is that there's two distinct problems here.
1. A dummy terminal with nothing but a tetris game inside and SD card compiling lists of PINS and Acct Numbers
and
2. A MITM attack against an otherwise functional terminal.
Upon first reading, I understood your solution to solve the second problem. My solution was intended to solve the first. Together, though, maybe we're on to something.
"I do have a problem with them driving down the road scanning every plate in sight. It is an intrusion. You are just rationalizing it because "driving is a privilege". Why is scanning my license plate any different from scanning my facial features and comparing them to DMV ID photos to see if I'm wanted for anything? Cuz that'll be coming next as technology improves. Next you'll say that going out in public also a "privilege"?"
"Why is scanning my license plate any different from scanning my facial features and comparing them to DMV ID photos to see if I'm wanted for anything?"
Assuming they look at you as you pass by doing your normal business, and assuming that the picture they compare you to is one they have on file in their own system, there is *nothing* wrong with this. Now, if they have to ask for your ID, or if they somehow interrupt your normal activity so they can get a good look at you, then it is an intrusion and it is a problem.
Next you'll say that going out in public also a "privilege"?"
No, but I will say that when you go out in PUBLIC you have no reasonable expectation of PRIVACY. If you want to keep something PRIVATE -- Your face, your license plate number, your finger prints, etc, I suggest that you keep those things private. People have a right to LOOK at anything they want to look at in public spaces. This right extends to the state.
And in my opinion, the best way to prevent a far-right 1984 is not to be as far left as possible. It's to be a pragmatist. When you have opinions like "no dirty copper has a right to look me in the kisser" it taints your other ideas without concern about their specific merits.
I mean, you're entitled to your opinion (obviously) but my POV is that you're actually harming what you're trying to protect.
But the thing is that it will narrow the dataset of, say, 1 BN people down to a handful of "maybes" that can then be screened.
Besides, I haven't thought it out, but I think the reality of fingerprint matching doesn't reduce to the "number of pixels must equal number of people." Wouldn't it actually be the number of permutations possible from X pixels must be equal to the number of people?
This is a very, very big difference.
I'm pretty confident in my post. You should check my references for this.