How exactly are they implementing this? You and a couple others are making reference to Tor and VPNs to get around this... what are they doing, blocking all non-UK porn sites at the ISP level? Even if they disallowed in-country caching servers for non-compliant companies, are they really not going to route traffic to the millions of porn sites not hosted in the UK, and thus unaffected by this law? Or are the British just so militant about watching domestic porn those yanks can bugger off with their burger porn?
You're really fighting against the tide there. The prevailing attitude has definitely shifted towards a default of 5-stars. For Amazon products to Uber drivers. What everyone has been doing is starting at 5, then just deducting stars if there's an actual problem. Which given the nature of review systems and their consequences, isn't an entirely unreasonable position. For products it's fine to leave an initial review if there's no problems at first, as long as you're able to go back and edit if you find a problem in the future. I know, I know, those kids need to get the hell off our lawns.
Do cops more often shoot black men? Sure. Of course after you account for more encounters to begin with, and for threat level, that disparity is barely even significant.
See this is the problem with SJWs, you think that minor difference is the problem, obsessed with turning everything into a racial thing. Guess what? Police shoot, beat, and tase unarmed white people too. They're trigger happy with everyone. THAT is the problem. We need to address that issue, to stop police abuse against everyone. The slight racial disparity is a secondary issue, what needs to be fixed is the primary issue of militarized police completely unwilling to deescalate or wait for a legitimate threat.
Stop turning problems with police in general into only a problem for one race. Address police abuse as police abuse, not 'racists!'.
Well you can only protect people from their own stupidity so much. I knew not to publish certain things under accounts linkable to my real identity since I was a kid on AOL. I like that I can use this nick to trace my activity back through the decades, but as it can be linked to my real name always knew not to post anything I wouldn't defend in public. Sorry, but anyone who thought they had any control over information over the availability of information transmitted to a 3rd party site is a fool.
So some of my impression on the NY law may not be accurate upon further research. I couldn't find a clear answer. Obviously all the right wing sites swear up and down that's the case, but the left/fact checking sites are highly ambiguous on that particular point, and the strongest reference I could find quoted as saying they "wouldn't" generally do that (as opposed to "couldn't" or "always wouldn't"). So if someone finds something concrete, feel free to point it out. And another point, there's absolutely no solid information to be found at all about the specifics and what is and is not a valid late-term justification (i.e. requiring a health reason but not discussing if that includes mental health and how it plays out on the ground). I'm getting highly suspicious neither side is painting a truthful picture. Well the right never does that anyway, but usually this falls into the 5% of the time where the left does. Not after trying to sort out that NY law.
Yeah but it is an issue. If a chemical late term abortion fails and the baby is born, new NY law and the proposed VA law allow for terminating it by withholding care (in all cases, not just cases where fetal viability or disease is an issue). The only response to this disturbing occurrence seems to be to point out ts rarity, which doesn't help much. It's getting hard to support the pro choice side when they insist killing viable, genetically healthy non-deformed fetuses post-birth is within the range of acceptable choices, regardless of how infrequently that occurs. Personally I have a really hard time saying it's ok to kill rather than deliver premature+incubate+forfeit well past the viability line to begin with, even at 1% of abortions that's over 10k a year, and it's rarely for a medical reason (which is fine, mother's health, fetus isn't viable, baby would have severely debilitating disease, abortion after viability is fine in all those cases, but that's rarely the reason, it's almost always non-medical, and the pro choice side absolutely insists on termination after viability even for healthy fetuses for any reason... that's a bit unsettling).
Firefox isn't much better. I had no idea all download URLs were transmitted to a malware check, until after I spent 8 hours on a super slow download of one part of a zipped video file (i.e. not even executable), then Firefox, without warning, said it was malware and deleted it so hard forensic software couldn't get it back a minute later. And the only option around this is disabling the service entirely, which was fine for me since I was appalled at it transmitting all my URLs to a 3rd party without warning, but I'd imagine some would want a prompt. Maybe they changed it since I stopped updating, but knowing Mozilla, it's probably worse.
It's not just having access to the devices. It's the access to devices combined with a complete lack of access to unsupervised free play. Kids aren't allowed to go outside, find friends, and do things around the neighborhood often well into their teens. The freedom most of us had by 6-10, kids don't now experience until mid teens and sometimes not til college. They're doing scheduled activities all day every day and never allowed more than a few feet from adults who will step in to solve any problem they have. It's become so universal that it's even become ingrained in law; even parents who want to give them that freedom can't, because now any kid outside without an adult can quickly become a police and child services issue.
Social media is *a* factor, but what do you expect when all real socialization is scheduled and supervised?
Any but the very most sparsely populated areas have schools big enough to handle all but the wildest extremes (unable to independently function at all or should be years ahead of even the class for the top 10%). But that's now becoming forbidden, because apparently, the solution to the racial disparity in the gifted class and the slow class isn't to have a hard look at why the situation exists in the first place, it's to chalk it up to racism, put the 150 IQ students in the same math class as the 50 IQ students, and call it equality while nobody learns anything. "Tracking" joins the endless list of color blind merit based systems that are now "racist" because no one is willing to address the underlying issues (or recognizes they're generational and can't be fixed in time to score the political credit, while 'everyone is equal in shittiness' will get them credit).
The vast majority of contraband is already brought in by staff. The number of facilities that even have contact visits (as opposed to through glass) isn't as high as you probably think, and the number of people and volume of contraband they can bring in by swallowing something passed while kissing and then later digging it out of their vomit or feces is fairly limited (any contact to the outside means a strip search coming back in, so that's the only way, since the guard would certainly see you if you tried suitcasing it).
Where. In the facility I was in, attorney visits were also conducted over the video call system. Staff were supposed to disable the recording of those but who knows how often they remember to.
There's a big push to get people formerly convicted of marijuana offenses into the legal marijuana industries. It's a good idea. One day the world will wake up and realize that as bad as the other drugs are, prohibition makes them worse in every way possible without even reducing abuse more than education and prevention programs. Hopefully the former victims of our fatally misconceived drug war will get that chance.
When regulations are removed, do companies all of a sudden say, "Aha! Now I can once again begin killing all the wildlife and stop filtering the pollution from my smokestacks!"?
Yes. Yes they do. Any compliance cost is less profit, and most companies will protect the environment only to the extent required by law.
Energy independence is important, as are jobs. Championing coal serves both of those needs.
This can be accomplished in a less harmful manner. Nuclear is not unreliable.
Please show me someone who believes that the climate is not changing. I stopped believing that there were "climate change deniers" within seconds of daring to look at the "skeptic" side of the climate change issue. Nobody who I have come across denies the science data showing climate changes throughout time.
Right they just argue humans have nothing to do with it or that it could actually be a good thing. My bad. Such big difference. Lol.
What information have they suppressed? Is it the secret information that proves that everyone should be alarmed? Is it the 12-years-and-we're-dead information? Wait, I've heard that one, so that's not suppressed. Is it the 97% agreement thing? Nope, heard that one. Actually, that 97% thing is dubious because they included scientists who wrote papers that were tangentially related to climate alarmist dogma, some of whom have expressed surprise or irritation that they were included in that 97% figure. Is that the suppressed information?
You're deliberately uninformed so raise strawmen, and incorrectly describe them at that. And yet you wonder why conservative intelligence gets insulted...
Politics works this way; when you have the ability to hire and fire as an executive, you get to pick people who support your agenda.
Firing scientists to replace them with non-scientist energy cronies or because of their research is ridiculous and anyone sane knows it. These weren't political positions I'm mainly talking about. And the few at the top who were... you're really going to tell me putting a dirty energy exec in charge of the EPA is just politics as usual? Maybe on your side.
The rest of your post is basically "yeah we're trashing the environment lol o well can't do anything might as well pollute with abandon!".
Because the clubhouse purports to speak for those people, and dictates those without as many victim points should shut up and listen to them. Not based on the merit of their ideas, because of their marginalization, they're the only ones qualified to speak on the issue. Unless of course they have a different opinion. It's "Are you black/gay/$identity? Then shut up you don't know our lived experience." Then someone who *is* $identity stands up and says 'I disagree' and is not listened to.
I'm for judging ideas based on their merit, I'm against the raging hypocrisy of saying only the marginalized can speak to something, then ostracizing them for dissent.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Oh they're knowingly against diversity of opinion, that's the bad kind of diversity. Only diversity of skin color and sexuality/gender matter. That said, it's not like they're misrepresenting things, like in so many other cases... Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to; they don't have any unique insight on AI ethics, and they're ethically bankrupt in far more of their positions than LGBT issues. Not all positions are of equal value, and it is worth questioning whether a rep for an organization that's demonstrated appalling ethical positions belongs on a panel intended advance that cause. Though Google's actual intention was probably more along the lines of just how unethical they can be before the torches and pitchforks get broken out.. in that yeah I guess you'd want Heritage.
Not forced onto Win10 yet I see... It force installs paid 3rd party software and sticks big tiles about it all over the start menu. Reinstalls with updates. They spam you with conventional ads too, but only for their own software so far. What, you think they shoved it down everyone's throat free of charge out of the goodness of their heart? Lol. Almost certainly the total remote access to all your files was either paid for or compelled by the government on top of that.
Can local propaganda minister Ungrounded Lightning please come back and reexplain how Republicans aren't really opposed to net neutrality again? We've got another blindingly obvious example to be denied here!
But Im sure the FTC will save us... Oh wait they clearly signalled their policy that anything is fine as long as it's disclosed... Make sure you deny that first buddy.
I've not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion on Seth Rich, but a "mugging gone bad" is precisely how you would assassinate someone. You'd make it look like a common crime, not an assassination. If anything it shifts the weight towards the latter, not away. Maybe his life was too clean for him to OD, and suicide too suspicious.
Trump trying to fix the climate? Good god are you dishonest. He's taken numerous steps to dismantle environmental protections. Heck boosting coal use is explicitly a major part of his platform. He's appointed numerous climate change denying energy industry cronies to the EPA and they've suppressed information and dismissed staff that won't play ball, or just because they're scientists who've pushed research and policies that contradict the pro-coal and CO2-is-good agenda. Some conservative leaders in the past indeed promoted policies that strengthened environment protections, but Trump is absolutely not one of them, and you're continuing your non-stop propaganda where you confuse what the right is saying they're doing with what they're actually doing. You have to be totally brainwashed to read the article you linked and conclude it portrays someone supporting environmental protections and not gutting them, especially considering what's omitted.
I'm right there with you about the left's ridiculous opposition to nuclear... but this seems to be an ongoing trend with the right, you're great at pointing out the problems with the left, but supremely intellectually dishonest about how much worse the right's alternative is. Sometimes I think SuperKendall is Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee-Sanders with all the double-talk and lying about conservative policy outcomes like "well conservatives said policy x will help y too, therefore it does" in spite of overwhelming evidence it will hurt, not help y. Trump is weakening environmental protections and you damn well know it. If you think that's fine because the dangers of AGW are exaggerated and pollution isn't all that bad, that's one thing, it's stupid sure, but to outright deny what he's doing is just dishonest.
Well the problem is the right makes statements like that then advocates policies that directly contravene them. Health Care is a prime example, you're living in a fantasy world if you think "protect the vulnerable" in any way shape or form will involve providing any decent level of care, just look at every proposal thus far. Their choice and lower premiums rhetoric always means policies that cover virtually nothing, so the poor remain without access to preventative care. They don't give one flying fuck about anyone unable to pay. Rhetoric != reality.
"Only" 2%?? That's 1 in 50. For a huge life altering consequence, those odds are absolutely high enough to treat it as a big deal. You people who claim things like that and the 2-10% (1 in 50 to 1 in 10) percent of false rape accusations make them so rare that no rational person should ever assume that's the case are batshit insane.
I worked at the front desk of a Manhattan residential building, it was fully expected of me, but not doormen, to know every resident of the over 500 units, and stop anyone that didn't live there to check if they were on the entry list or call up and ask if the resident wanted them let in. It was serious too, new employees couldn't be alone at the desk until they could do this without accidentally stopping someone who lived there. Now of course we didn't log residents coming in and out, but between us and confirmed by the multiple cameras, it could have been done. So I don't see the big deal of this either unless it's cloud based, I sure as hell wouldn't want some off site service with the facial recognition logs (our camera system was entirely on site and air gapped from anything internet connected, that would be fine).
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly are they implementing this? You and a couple others are making reference to Tor and VPNs to get around this... what are they doing, blocking all non-UK porn sites at the ISP level? Even if they disallowed in-country caching servers for non-compliant companies, are they really not going to route traffic to the millions of porn sites not hosted in the UK, and thus unaffected by this law? Or are the British just so militant about watching domestic porn those yanks can bugger off with their burger porn?
You're really fighting against the tide there. The prevailing attitude has definitely shifted towards a default of 5-stars. For Amazon products to Uber drivers. What everyone has been doing is starting at 5, then just deducting stars if there's an actual problem. Which given the nature of review systems and their consequences, isn't an entirely unreasonable position. For products it's fine to leave an initial review if there's no problems at first, as long as you're able to go back and edit if you find a problem in the future. I know, I know, those kids need to get the hell off our lawns.
Do cops more often shoot black men? Sure. Of course after you account for more encounters to begin with, and for threat level, that disparity is barely even significant.
See this is the problem with SJWs, you think that minor difference is the problem, obsessed with turning everything into a racial thing. Guess what? Police shoot, beat, and tase unarmed white people too. They're trigger happy with everyone. THAT is the problem. We need to address that issue, to stop police abuse against everyone. The slight racial disparity is a secondary issue, what needs to be fixed is the primary issue of militarized police completely unwilling to deescalate or wait for a legitimate threat.
Stop turning problems with police in general into only a problem for one race. Address police abuse as police abuse, not 'racists!'.
Well you can only protect people from their own stupidity so much. I knew not to publish certain things under accounts linkable to my real identity since I was a kid on AOL. I like that I can use this nick to trace my activity back through the decades, but as it can be linked to my real name always knew not to post anything I wouldn't defend in public. Sorry, but anyone who thought they had any control over information over the availability of information transmitted to a 3rd party site is a fool.
So some of my impression on the NY law may not be accurate upon further research. I couldn't find a clear answer. Obviously all the right wing sites swear up and down that's the case, but the left/fact checking sites are highly ambiguous on that particular point, and the strongest reference I could find quoted as saying they "wouldn't" generally do that (as opposed to "couldn't" or "always wouldn't"). So if someone finds something concrete, feel free to point it out. And another point, there's absolutely no solid information to be found at all about the specifics and what is and is not a valid late-term justification (i.e. requiring a health reason but not discussing if that includes mental health and how it plays out on the ground). I'm getting highly suspicious neither side is painting a truthful picture. Well the right never does that anyway, but usually this falls into the 5% of the time where the left does. Not after trying to sort out that NY law.
Yeah but it is an issue. If a chemical late term abortion fails and the baby is born, new NY law and the proposed VA law allow for terminating it by withholding care (in all cases, not just cases where fetal viability or disease is an issue). The only response to this disturbing occurrence seems to be to point out ts rarity, which doesn't help much. It's getting hard to support the pro choice side when they insist killing viable, genetically healthy non-deformed fetuses post-birth is within the range of acceptable choices, regardless of how infrequently that occurs. Personally I have a really hard time saying it's ok to kill rather than deliver premature+incubate+forfeit well past the viability line to begin with, even at 1% of abortions that's over 10k a year, and it's rarely for a medical reason (which is fine, mother's health, fetus isn't viable, baby would have severely debilitating disease, abortion after viability is fine in all those cases, but that's rarely the reason, it's almost always non-medical, and the pro choice side absolutely insists on termination after viability even for healthy fetuses for any reason... that's a bit unsettling).
Firefox isn't much better. I had no idea all download URLs were transmitted to a malware check, until after I spent 8 hours on a super slow download of one part of a zipped video file (i.e. not even executable), then Firefox, without warning, said it was malware and deleted it so hard forensic software couldn't get it back a minute later. And the only option around this is disabling the service entirely, which was fine for me since I was appalled at it transmitting all my URLs to a 3rd party without warning, but I'd imagine some would want a prompt. Maybe they changed it since I stopped updating, but knowing Mozilla, it's probably worse.
It's not just having access to the devices. It's the access to devices combined with a complete lack of access to unsupervised free play. Kids aren't allowed to go outside, find friends, and do things around the neighborhood often well into their teens. The freedom most of us had by 6-10, kids don't now experience until mid teens and sometimes not til college. They're doing scheduled activities all day every day and never allowed more than a few feet from adults who will step in to solve any problem they have. It's become so universal that it's even become ingrained in law; even parents who want to give them that freedom can't, because now any kid outside without an adult can quickly become a police and child services issue.
Social media is *a* factor, but what do you expect when all real socialization is scheduled and supervised?
Any but the very most sparsely populated areas have schools big enough to handle all but the wildest extremes (unable to independently function at all or should be years ahead of even the class for the top 10%). But that's now becoming forbidden, because apparently, the solution to the racial disparity in the gifted class and the slow class isn't to have a hard look at why the situation exists in the first place, it's to chalk it up to racism, put the 150 IQ students in the same math class as the 50 IQ students, and call it equality while nobody learns anything. "Tracking" joins the endless list of color blind merit based systems that are now "racist" because no one is willing to address the underlying issues (or recognizes they're generational and can't be fixed in time to score the political credit, while 'everyone is equal in shittiness' will get them credit).
Nah. They don't deserve nearly that much credit. At best they're nazi wannabes.
Well if that's what the cops said he did... shit why even have a trial. They said he's an armed robber!
The vast majority of contraband is already brought in by staff. The number of facilities that even have contact visits (as opposed to through glass) isn't as high as you probably think, and the number of people and volume of contraband they can bring in by swallowing something passed while kissing and then later digging it out of their vomit or feces is fairly limited (any contact to the outside means a strip search coming back in, so that's the only way, since the guard would certainly see you if you tried suitcasing it).
Where. In the facility I was in, attorney visits were also conducted over the video call system. Staff were supposed to disable the recording of those but who knows how often they remember to.
There's a big push to get people formerly convicted of marijuana offenses into the legal marijuana industries. It's a good idea. One day the world will wake up and realize that as bad as the other drugs are, prohibition makes them worse in every way possible without even reducing abuse more than education and prevention programs. Hopefully the former victims of our fatally misconceived drug war will get that chance.
When regulations are removed, do companies all of a sudden say, "Aha! Now I can once again begin killing all the wildlife and stop filtering the pollution from my smokestacks!"?
Yes. Yes they do. Any compliance cost is less profit, and most companies will protect the environment only to the extent required by law.
Energy independence is important, as are jobs. Championing coal serves both of those needs.
This can be accomplished in a less harmful manner. Nuclear is not unreliable.
Please show me someone who believes that the climate is not changing. I stopped believing that there were "climate change deniers" within seconds of daring to look at the "skeptic" side of the climate change issue. Nobody who I have come across denies the science data showing climate changes throughout time.
Right they just argue humans have nothing to do with it or that it could actually be a good thing. My bad. Such big difference. Lol.
What information have they suppressed? Is it the secret information that proves that everyone should be alarmed? Is it the 12-years-and-we're-dead information? Wait, I've heard that one, so that's not suppressed. Is it the 97% agreement thing? Nope, heard that one. Actually, that 97% thing is dubious because they included scientists who wrote papers that were tangentially related to climate alarmist dogma, some of whom have expressed surprise or irritation that they were included in that 97% figure. Is that the suppressed information?
You're deliberately uninformed so raise strawmen, and incorrectly describe them at that. And yet you wonder why conservative intelligence gets insulted...
Politics works this way; when you have the ability to hire and fire as an executive, you get to pick people who support your agenda.
Firing scientists to replace them with non-scientist energy cronies or because of their research is ridiculous and anyone sane knows it. These weren't political positions I'm mainly talking about. And the few at the top who were... you're really going to tell me putting a dirty energy exec in charge of the EPA is just politics as usual? Maybe on your side.
The rest of your post is basically "yeah we're trashing the environment lol o well can't do anything might as well pollute with abandon!".
Because the clubhouse purports to speak for those people, and dictates those without as many victim points should shut up and listen to them. Not based on the merit of their ideas, because of their marginalization, they're the only ones qualified to speak on the issue. Unless of course they have a different opinion. It's "Are you black/gay/$identity? Then shut up you don't know our lived experience." Then someone who *is* $identity stands up and says 'I disagree' and is not listened to.
I'm for judging ideas based on their merit, I'm against the raging hypocrisy of saying only the marginalized can speak to something, then ostracizing them for dissent.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Oh they're knowingly against diversity of opinion, that's the bad kind of diversity. Only diversity of skin color and sexuality/gender matter. That said, it's not like they're misrepresenting things, like in so many other cases... Heritage does explicitly argue against equal rights. Not really sure someone who believes in lesser rights because of who you are is an opinion really worth listening to; they don't have any unique insight on AI ethics, and they're ethically bankrupt in far more of their positions than LGBT issues. Not all positions are of equal value, and it is worth questioning whether a rep for an organization that's demonstrated appalling ethical positions belongs on a panel intended advance that cause. Though Google's actual intention was probably more along the lines of just how unethical they can be before the torches and pitchforks get broken out.. in that yeah I guess you'd want Heritage.
Not forced onto Win10 yet I see... It force installs paid 3rd party software and sticks big tiles about it all over the start menu. Reinstalls with updates. They spam you with conventional ads too, but only for their own software so far. What, you think they shoved it down everyone's throat free of charge out of the goodness of their heart? Lol. Almost certainly the total remote access to all your files was either paid for or compelled by the government on top of that.
Can local propaganda minister Ungrounded Lightning please come back and reexplain how Republicans aren't really opposed to net neutrality again? We've got another blindingly obvious example to be denied here!
But Im sure the FTC will save us... Oh wait they clearly signalled their policy that anything is fine as long as it's disclosed... Make sure you deny that first buddy.
I've not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion on Seth Rich, but a "mugging gone bad" is precisely how you would assassinate someone. You'd make it look like a common crime, not an assassination. If anything it shifts the weight towards the latter, not away. Maybe his life was too clean for him to OD, and suicide too suspicious.
Trump trying to fix the climate? Good god are you dishonest. He's taken numerous steps to dismantle environmental protections. Heck boosting coal use is explicitly a major part of his platform. He's appointed numerous climate change denying energy industry cronies to the EPA and they've suppressed information and dismissed staff that won't play ball, or just because they're scientists who've pushed research and policies that contradict the pro-coal and CO2-is-good agenda. Some conservative leaders in the past indeed promoted policies that strengthened environment protections, but Trump is absolutely not one of them, and you're continuing your non-stop propaganda where you confuse what the right is saying they're doing with what they're actually doing. You have to be totally brainwashed to read the article you linked and conclude it portrays someone supporting environmental protections and not gutting them, especially considering what's omitted.
I'm right there with you about the left's ridiculous opposition to nuclear... but this seems to be an ongoing trend with the right, you're great at pointing out the problems with the left, but supremely intellectually dishonest about how much worse the right's alternative is. Sometimes I think SuperKendall is Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee-Sanders with all the double-talk and lying about conservative policy outcomes like "well conservatives said policy x will help y too, therefore it does" in spite of overwhelming evidence it will hurt, not help y. Trump is weakening environmental protections and you damn well know it. If you think that's fine because the dangers of AGW are exaggerated and pollution isn't all that bad, that's one thing, it's stupid sure, but to outright deny what he's doing is just dishonest.
Well the problem is the right makes statements like that then advocates policies that directly contravene them. Health Care is a prime example, you're living in a fantasy world if you think "protect the vulnerable" in any way shape or form will involve providing any decent level of care, just look at every proposal thus far. Their choice and lower premiums rhetoric always means policies that cover virtually nothing, so the poor remain without access to preventative care. They don't give one flying fuck about anyone unable to pay. Rhetoric != reality.
"Only" 2%?? That's 1 in 50. For a huge life altering consequence, those odds are absolutely high enough to treat it as a big deal. You people who claim things like that and the 2-10% (1 in 50 to 1 in 10) percent of false rape accusations make them so rare that no rational person should ever assume that's the case are batshit insane.
I worked at the front desk of a Manhattan residential building, it was fully expected of me, but not doormen, to know every resident of the over 500 units, and stop anyone that didn't live there to check if they were on the entry list or call up and ask if the resident wanted them let in. It was serious too, new employees couldn't be alone at the desk until they could do this without accidentally stopping someone who lived there. Now of course we didn't log residents coming in and out, but between us and confirmed by the multiple cameras, it could have been done.
So I don't see the big deal of this either unless it's cloud based, I sure as hell wouldn't want some off site service with the facial recognition logs (our camera system was entirely on site and air gapped from anything internet connected, that would be fine).