Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Turn yourself in! (Score 1) 92

by jklovanc (#47924289) Attached to: FBI Completes New Face Recognition System

Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither

You can't even get the quote right. The real quote is as follows;

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Notice the word "essential". Being anonymous to the police is not an essential liberty or we would never catch and criminals.

Comment: Re:Dragnet (Score 1) 92

by jklovanc (#47922045) Attached to: FBI Completes New Face Recognition System

Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves.

Law enforcement is not a single entity and do not all think alike. Also, the filming of police officers has been found to be legal in most places.

that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.

I have seen censoring of secure areas but not public areas. Do you have any references of public areas being censored?

Comment: finger scanning fingerprint (Score 1) 230

by jklovanc (#47904111) Attached to: School Installs Biometric Fingerprint System For Cafeteria

A finger scanner looks for certain features and reduces the result to a number. There are many different algorithms to do this encoding. Even different versions of the same model use different algorithms and fingers have to be re-scanned. The bottom line is that, in most cases, finger scans from different systems can not be use to identify someone between systems.

Comment: Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 3, Informative) 163

by jklovanc (#47898253) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

and if they do cross my property line they can be held responsible, including me shooting it out of the sky.

Can you shoot down airliners who cross your property lines?
You actually don't own all airspace over your property. There has been a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.

It is clear that the land owner does not own navigable airspace. Navigable airspace is defined with respect to fixed wing aircraft, the FAA has done that, it is unclear as to what navigable airspace means with respect to small drones. There is even a clause that allows helicopters to fly below normal flight minimums. There still needs to be legislation defining exactly what "space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land" legally means. Having to fly comercial drones at fixed wing minimums would render them useless. This is one of the reasons why the FAA is holding back on allowing commercial drones as the laws backing them up are unclear.

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- D.E. Knuth

Working...