Why not install machines that automate the selling of tokens to open barriers and allow access to the trains, you know like a scannable ticket. Or is the real intent here to be able to track peoples movements?
Of course, as you know, we already have these.
However the use of direct contactless payment via bank cards has proved to be a big cost saver and is very convenient for most people.
What this is is the tendency of technologically interested but clueless public officialdom to try and follow the latest trends as pushed by the vendors of new technology.
Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
Yes - but all those were tech issues that have become so important that the mainstream took them up or mainstream issues where tech knowledge and understanding should be game changers.
. I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
which puts you basically in the same boat as the celebrity critics. Personally I would rather hear the opinions of experts on immigration policy and/or those who understand the legal niceties of what is and isn't constitutional.
As for the inhumanity of it - well I can think of many worse examples of inhumanity, a surprisingly large number of which have been perpetrated by governments or citizens of the very same nations that are affected by the ban.
There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing."
Yes - but if your going to do that then you do have to have a reason that isn't just personal bias. If you find it annoying then that is probably because it has touched a nerve somewhere.
The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people
If you look more carefully you will find that most of that was caused by exactly the same issue that I raised - namely the fact that politicians make sweeping generalisations which then get interpreted by "jobsworth" functionaries in ways that have horrible and unintended consequences.
This is not qualitatively different from business as usual at the US border - just bigger - and because it is bigger then some of the problems have been fixed quicker than they would have been if only a few people had been affected.
Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true.
Actually I'm not objecting to this post initially I was answering the commenter who claimed that all this was really just normal business for techdirt. I did then go on to say that (with the first post) I thought you had strayed outside the area where you were adding significant value - that is all.
Since you seem to be new here you may want to go back and read through some of the older articles. Techdirt has always been political.
It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
It has tended to concentrate of political issues that relate to copyright/patent/trademark or security.
As such it has thrown useful light on these issues by putting forward the viewpoint of those who understand the technology against politicians who almost always don't.
I Mike's first post on this topic he more or less admitted that he was straying for his usual stalking ground.
_We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.
But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you._
I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
It's about reacting to Trump.
If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
I find myself signing petitions against such deportations (from the UK in my case) on a regular basis.
So why speak out about this particular one now?
Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
Trump promised a Muslim ban - then found that he couldn't easily implement it (within the constitution) and so created something that is designed to look like a Muslim ban to those who supported it.
Of course even an actual Muslim ban would have been pointless and ineffective. However I believe what he was trying to do was to send a signal that in future we would call a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism. (In sharp contrast to the words of even GWBush and many republicans - let alone Obama).
That would have been a good idea if he had found a better way of doing it.
I realize that there are much bigger issues at hand right now,
Actually those issues aren't that big- at least they do not represent anything abnormal in the behaviour of the US or other similar governments.
The kind of injustice you highlighted actually happens all the time - Trump's decree - whilst stupid - I'm not defending it - has not created more that a small spike in the noise spectrum of US immigration injustice.
Of course his opponents have tried to make a big deal of it and have somewhat misrepresented it in order to do so.
However I think this story is actually more important - it should be allowed to be buried under the temporary and phoney kerfuffle about immigration policy.
Except that a nation is not a unified moral entity capable of "deserving" anything.
The statement is nonsense - no matter who said it.
In fact the refutation of this idea is the real point behind the story of Sodom.
From Genesis 18
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
The story then goes on to progressively count down the 50 to smaller and smaller numbers - always with the same result - until Abraham realies which way this is going.
So no - a nation is not capable of "deserving" a government and even if it were then in the real world we note that nations often get governments that have been foisted on them by other nations (quite often the US - as many S. American countries will testify.)
Chile certainly didn't deserve Pinochet for example - so your quote is rubbish.