Just put the word 'freedom' or 'right' in front of something and you get a bunch of politicians willing to back it no matter how anti-freedom and anti-your civil rights it is.
See for example 'right to work' which really consists of scrapping employee protections, and 'religious freedom' laws that allow businesses to discriminate against you for any reason they can backup by 'sincerely held religious beliefs'.
I read an article a few days ago that said that facial recognition is actually the safest public available method for authentication. They held it up against passwords, pass phrases, fingerprint and iris scans. Incredibly enough they found that Windows hello was the hardest to fool when they couldn't even use an identical twin to access someones computer. It does have its troubles though... gain or loose weight, grow a beard, get a too obvious piercing, or get an injury and you would be locked out. This leads back to a secondary method of gaining access which is then dependent on one of the less safe methods. It does provide a somewhat good security though, as faces are hard to copy when a cutout won't work. Iris and fingerprints are just too simple to be effective.
Re: Re: Time to stop using fingerprints for authentication, then
Despite their weaknesses, passwords are much better than any biometric.
If for no other reason the fact that I can change a password when it gets compromised or whenever I choose makes them better. Good luck finding a new biometric after someone gets all your fingerprints.
False, false, and soooooo false. It's these very wrong belief's about them that is creating a widespread security problem.
They are not perfect. In fact, it's common for them to even change over time.
Even if you did have a perfect capture of whatever biometric you're using, which actually rarely happens, the idea that they are unique has never been tested or proven true. It's just always been assumed, and security is not a place we should be assuming anything.
They are ridiculously easy to replicate. I can most likely replicate at least one of your fingerprints just testing your outside doors and car doors.
Wait, I thought it was clear Trump was no conservative at all. Or are you just trying to go Godwin on me here?
Sure not everyone is 100% anything but if another label fits them better, then use that label instead. Kinda like the difference between left, right, liberal, conservative. They are all different and the one that matches the person MOST is the one you label them with, even if they still claim to be something else.
Judge everyone based on the fruit of their labors, not the words flapping out of their mouth.
Same here. I read the article expecting to get to a block about how some enterprising surveillance company had decided to add "Makes peace sign in public" as a classifier for adding people to some secret terrorist list. Fingerprint theft is a recurring problem. This is an interesting new take on it, but it's not the instantly and broadly applicable problem that an overzealous surveillance state is.
Flag burning represents what the country stands for - a place where unpopular speech can flourish. Most people outraged by it forget that fact.
Flag burning offended the officers and they wanted to make an example out of the guy. The only problem is by doing so, they might as well have taken a shit on the ashes, given that they violated the very premise for which it stands.
The problem is that a "publically available" database is relatively easy to cover for media which eventually would force some politicians into claiming terrible things about their handling of data.
Releasing data after it is clear how bad of a court case they have is, stalling to extort the victim and buy time to prepare a way to make the case disappear and then claiming it was all part of a plan is pretty much standard government practice. Losing in court looks extremely bad and would create even worse precedence, forcing them to comply with the letter of the law instead of having a goto excuse for opacity. Preemptively complying to make the court case go away will be possible to spin into something harmless in the media since very few journalists bring anything from court documents (the journalist would be crucified by their overlords because of how boring the story will be.).
The game footage starts I think around 6:50. It's so obviously from a video game (maybe only if you've played video games though), and the aircraft carrier one is especially blatant. There's supposed to be a camera in the nose of a missile live streaming HD video of the target and the missile ahead? Then when the carrier explodes (how powerful were those little missiles anyway?) the view shifts to some other vantage point (but otherwise looks exactly the same, as though it's the same type of camera). The explosion doesn't look real at all, and are they really trying to claim the South Korean military blew up an aircraft carrier?
Given just how very dumb all that is, I don't think they were really trying to pass this off as actual combat footage. It's supposed to be a simulation, and they just didn't mention they lifted it from a video game.
The concept of "flag burning is evil" is built around the underlying idea of "desecration".
An American flag is a symbol of America — not just of the country as a landmass, but of the principles and ideals for which we believe it stands. We are taught that such symbols are to be revered; any show of disrespect toward the flag is also a show of disrespect to America and its people. We are also taught that destruction of the flag as a "dignified" method of disposal does not disrespect the flag.
It is when people destroy the flag as a political statement that we believe the flag has been "desecrated". We have been taught to see flag-burning as a sign of disrespect toward the America — and the American identity. In other words, an "attack" on the flag is an attack on America and its people.
What we were never taught, however, is that a flag is literally just a piece of cloth. We only ascribe meaning to the cloth based on how we were taught to treat it. Burn a washrag or a T-shirt, and no one cares; burn a flag, and everyone loses their minds. Why? Because we were taught to see this one piece of cloth as more important than others, to think of disrespecting this one symbol as an attack on who we are as people.
We were also never taught to consider what is done in the name of this symbol. The flag is meant to be a symbol of America's brightest ideals and highest aspirations. Never mind how America was built on the backs of Black slaves and over the bodies of Native Americans, or how America routinely plays "G.I. Joe" around the world with weapons powerful enough to level buildings. Forget about how politicians wrap themselves in the flag to justify horrible treatment of American citizens (which often helps line the pockets of those politicians). And do not think about our system of mass incarceration or police brutality. The flag stands for "freedom", "justice", and "equality", so burning it is an "attack" on those concepts.
We were taught to see "political" flag burning as an act of violence visited upon the United States and its people. Knowing this, are you still surprised at what all the fuss is about?