Obviously this is only going to work for very, very important and infrequent messages, as one could run out of keys quickly or have to worry about too many keys being found by the opposition and compromised, but for those applications it works just fine.
Automobile magazines take pictures of cars from as far away as practical, so that the part of the car closer to the camera doesn't look substantially larger than the part of the car further from the lens. They use a telephoto lens to achieve this.
It involves the internet
... so I'll assume some form of pornography.
That takes me back...
I was one of the first kids in my neighborhood to regularly BBS and to have a color inkjet printer, I used to sell individual printed pages for $0.50 each...
(see what I did there?!)
"And get the machine that goes 'bing!'."
"And get the most expensive machine - in case the Administrator comes."
"Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'bing!'. This is my favorite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account."
Besides, if Coca-Cola can retain, "Coke," as a trademark when vast portions of the country refer to basic soft carbonated soda drinks of any type as, "coke," then I don't think that those challenging Gogole's trademark have much of a chance.
He was subsequently retried and convicted without the excluded evidence. So it is possible to obtain a conviction in some cases without some evidence.
The proper way to remedy abuses during the Civil Rights Era would have been (perhaps) to amend the Constitution so as to specify that assault (including sexual) and murder could not be nullified.
"We didn't engage in Jury Nullification, Your Honor, we did not feel that the State presented a case beyond a reasonable doubt."
Please note, this doesn't mean I believe that he shouldn't be charged and tried for such an offense (though I'm not sure what the charge would be, precisely). Merely that he has not, as of yet, been so convicted. And "improper use of military equipement" should be an additional charge filed at the same time, as it was comitted as a part of the same offense.
Thing of it is, now that this evidence has been ruled inadmissable, they probably can't find enough evidence through other means that doesn't tie back to this evidence to build a case. Doesn't matter that they might have charged him with improper use of military equipment, they probably cannot find a method by which to demonstrate that improper use occurred without resorting to inadmissable evidence to find it, so the fruit of the tree is poisoned, as it were.
I am not a lawyer either, but I have been interested in how this aspect of law would play-out. It may affect the prosecution of those detained in the War on Terror too, if judges recognize illegally-obtained evidence and the subsequent evidence produced from it. That could well mean problems with interrogations, and given that this ruling cited a problem with military justice, there's a possibility that such rulings could apply to military tribunals too.
Students aren't required to show their ID to enter the school, but if they're asked for their ID and cannot produce it then they have to go through another annoying process in addition to whatever else happened that caused someone to ask for their ID in the first place. Typlically their IDs are required for checking out books from the library, for engaging in official textbook check-out and return with the school bookstore, conducting drop/add of classes in the front office or counseling office, getting released from campus earlier than the normal end of the school day (for those that have fewer than the full-day's classes and have parental permission to leave), and other sorts of things. The ID acts as the central system for ensuring that all business functions of the school run smoothly, even if they never purchase a school lunch.
... says the guy who's never integrated 3 different systems owned by 3 different departments of a bureaucratic local government before.
Same department, actually, and yes, I have. When new students are enrolled, the student information system exports changes nightly, and those changes are imported into the ID system and the school is notified to take the picture and generate the ID. If the student qualifies for Title I free/reduced lunch, the export from the student system creates the record for the school lunch system, and the school lunch system knows how to query the ID system.
The three people involved sit in offices about 40' away from each other an routinely meet to verify that it's working. And none of it requires anything more invasive than standard enrollment data and yearbook data.
A cafeteria would need a device of some kind in either system.
Existing POS software for school cafeterias already can cross-reference the enrollment records and photos.
Troubleshooting a system that's widely implemented beyond the cafeteria is also easier, as the people that maintain the ID database, the enrollment records database, and the POS system already exist. They'd either have to take-on new duties or would have to hire someone else.
If the students are required to carry their school-issued ID, that school-issued ID can serve as their payment card, and if there's a concern with fraud in the sense of a different student using the card, then add a PIN pad to the card reader. Mind you, at least in the elementary schools the lunch ladies know who's on free and reduced lunch, who has special diets, etc, so it would be harder for fraud by kids.
Or, cross-link the ID card system's picture database to the POS in the cafeteria, so that when the card is swiped, the picture comes up on-screen, and the lunch lady can see if the student paying is the student on the ID.
And as for elementary schools, at least around here the kids come as a class, and many times the lunch lady simply points to the kid's face on the touchscreen as the whole class is on-screen at one time, so the kid doesn't even need ID.
This fingerprint system seems like an overly complicated, overly invasive means to cover a couple bucks or equivalent-pounds worth of food every day.