So, I see two scenarios are possible:
A. It appears this is a chronic problem across the industry and none of the engineers, regulators, or lawyers has caught it until slashdot anonymous coward saved the world with his post.
B. This particular AC is a egotistical blowhard who wants to sound authoritative.
Let me think for a moment... which is the more likely scenario?
Well... of course you can sell it if you want. It would not be against the law to do so. You did buy the hardware. It will, however, stop working for the new owner at some point in the future.
Let's be clear. "You're not allowed" does not mean men from black helicopters coming through your skylight denying you your resale rights.
Part of the condition was her carrying the badge around anyway (no battery) and never talking about or objecting to the program.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars no less, showed no such condition for stopping the disenrollment. She merely had to wear the [chipless] id.
The family's story has since changed, upon further questioning by real journalists, to that they believe carrying the [chipless] id would be the same as condoning the program.
Bullshit. That is what the father may have claimed initially. His story, after subsequent interviews by actual journalists who cared to ask the right questions, changed to [paraphrased] "carrying the non-chipped ID would be equivalent to our endorsement of the RFID program." He lied to the initial reporter to get media traction and is backtracking.
The letter from the district, posted on Infowars, whack-a-doodle site itself, made it quite clear how she could stop disenrollment and outlined the specific steps required. Stop objecting and publicly support the program were nowhere to be found in those conditions.
Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.
Then, somehow, got Score 5: Informative for it too. ___ you slashdot.
They need a refresher, yes.
I can see how the police got here though. 99% of the time the person the security guards have detained is a complete ___hole who probably did do something illegal. They got complacent and forgot to ask the right questions to the security guards.
The fact that they aren't law enforcement doesn't invalidate the analysis of what happened. Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout?
The poster is right. This woman could have said "no" and walked away. She chose instead of cause a scene and has now been called out on it. Protest all you want out in public, not while in front of me in line while I'm trying to make my flight.
It sure would work! The US phone company that made the connection would pay the fine if the foreign one didn't. This would then cause a renegotiation of that contract between US-co and non-US-co that requires enforcement on their end or no further calls will be connected.
Like I said, the dead-end pays the fine. After that, the free market sorts it out.