I don't know... Fedex/UPS might want to keep a human on board. Some of those items are important / fragile / expensive. With a human on board there's someone there to "mind the inventory" and to react if something goes wrong (accident / breakdown / etc.) Instead of the brown-robotic-truck sending out an SOS and waiting for someone to come, a person can be there to make sure none of the boxes "walk way"

Sure... some Fedex/UPS stuff "goes missing off the back of the truck" and I'm sure the drivers are sometimes behind it... but better to have a human there just in case.

I agree with the truckers and HazMat stuff. You want someone around, even if it's just to get help.

Seriously, wtf.

To play devil's advocate I can see one logical reason

By using the x-million (or whatever) combinations of the DNA sequence it acts like a barcode. So just because you have some random DNA sludge on you from one place doesn't mean you have it from the place they're looking at.

With chemicals you're limited in the combinations. Sure you can have chemical markers like most of the chemical products out there have (this % of inert compound is batch A, % of that inert compound is batch B%). But if you're talking about a thin film of chemicals surviving on a person for a few days... who's to say the Mass Spec readings won't be tainted by exposure to every day stuff (soaps, detergents, cooking ingredients, fertilizer, etc).

So with the chemicals, a few days later you find a guy and can say in the report: he has enough of the "base" on him to say he was exposed to BrandX chemical marker, unfortunately we can't say with enough certainty that it was from BuildingY because the mass spec is getting lots of different readings

With DNA, you can say "OK, we found a fair amount of this DNA marker from sweat-swabs, and said marker does not appear to exist in nature. So he was at least in BuildingY and got hit with the BrandX chemical marker at some point.

I'm not saying I agree with DNA-laced film vs compound, or even this whole "fog" concept in general. Just saying, there's at least one valid reason.

Ignoring the legal ramifications of this (for now)...

Facial Recognition is neat, I'll give it that. BUT it's not as accurate as people think. Against a small sample set (hundreds) OR with very solid source pics (both A and B) it's decent. But between poor surveillance images and the "margin of error" settings on the software you can end up with lots of false positives.

Add that to the huge DMV databases across the country, you're going to get a LOT of false positives. Sometimes too much data is worse than too little. Imagine showing all 30 matches of VERY VERY similar people to a witness who's already nervous enough. I know the cops already show them handfuls of similar pics: but the "similar" pics might be "chubby white-skinned guy" and not "chubby white-skinned guys that looks REALLY REALLY REALLY similar"

All of this noise is going to cause a headache. Even just adjoining states, you're going to have close enough hits. So what, you're going to have to investigate them? If you're basing off a picture you can't just say "Well he's 30miles away so let's consider him but NOT that guy who's 40miles away"

Sure you might say "Well we'll factor criminal background into this." But if you're basing on a criminal record, then well, why not just use the mug shots?

I'm cool with dye packs. They're immediate, short-range, they make it very visible that you're the bad-guy or were at least near the money at some point. In the days / hours following the heist there's a chance someone saw a fluorescent blue guy running around. Maybe you were part of the crime or maybe you were near a discarded pack when it went off. In either case, it's a visibly obvious way to at least track where the money was going.

So: short range, easy to notice (and complain about) accidental exposure, etc.

This... I don't know. What happens if you were exposed by accident; via a leak or rub-off from someone else. You won't know, in which case if it gets "found" then you have a big hassle of explaining your alibi. IE: they find out you were there around that day, check you out, and zap you have the DNA residue.

And of course, some a$$hats will just assume it's fool-proof and that you're involved. Some people really gobble this stuff up; every new thing is infallible and the best thing since sliced bread.

So they take it a step farther and instead of passively spraying someone when an exhibit case opens, they spray it on unsuspecting crowds during a riot / protest while you're buying some street hotdog. And going along with the a$$hat argument, they try to say "Well you were there so you must have been a trouble maker"

I guess there's the science aspect of archaeology in there, and there are some archaeology nerds out there.

Like an A/C responded below, I usually get annoyed when people whine about Article X being posted on slashdot. Especially when there's obviously a science-angle or fuel for a techie debate within the contents.

But I have to admit... this one is kind of pushing it. It's more of like a CNN or Local-News blurb to fill in 3 minutes of air time.

Not really

Even non-empire countries will have clandestine groups. The only difference is size and scope. This isn't just a USA/Russia/UK/* Korea thing. Though I imagine those mentioned countries have larger spy and clandestine groups than most other countries.

Even if it's just counter-intel to the various other countries that might want to spy on you.

And then there's the military angle. Even if you're a quiet country not involved in any wars... chances are you have at least a small military presence within your OWN borders. In which case, said surveillance agency helps let you know "Oh by the way, your neighbors are practicing maneuvers near the border."

My post wasn't in response to the overall issue. It was to the parent post who says the whole "sunlight is the best disinfectant" line. Which I've heard in real-life used as a mantra for people against ALL clandestine organizations / operations.

So I was responding to that mantra and not the whole PRISM debacle.

There are two schools of thought. Both are valid but it requires a balancing act between the two.

A) Who watches the watchers. If an organization is too secret and has too much power / autonomy then it's a dangerous thing: both to our safety and our liberties.

B) You need to actually be secret and discreet if you want to spy successfully. Face it, there will always be spies and espionage: every country out there does it to some degree. People in surveillance + intelligence + espionage can't "do your job" if you're too far into the sunlight.

USA Politician: Oh, here's a list of personnel and here are the strategies we're using.
Foreign Politician: OK, good to know... we'll work on messing with these people and/or bribing them, and our counter-Intel guys will try to avoid your strategies.

My response was to his first sentence. That it's a catch-22 because you can't know the law but it can be used against you.

Obviously, there are instances of actual catch-22's in the legal system. But that sentence by itself was not one of them.

While the law codes are atrocious: unorganized, poorly worded, sometimes contradictory...

Your statement is not really a catch-22 since you can technically "know" or learn the law. Nothing is stopping you, except for the desire to read a LOT of poorly-worded text. Or, in the case of guns, one can more easily focus on stuff related to gun ownership + sales.

A catch-22 is more of a paradox, and-or deadlock. For example: you can't do A without B, but ALSO can't do B without A.

You example is: You can't do A without knowing B... and you just didn't bother trying to learn B

That doesn't help with texting. A lot of texting-based accidents happen while the user is typing a message, or reading a message.

When typing, there is no way for the provider to know whether you're typing it. Only if you clicked the send button at a specific instant. In which case, if the *bam* comes before that, no dice.

With reading... they can tell if you received a text a couple of minutes prior to the accident. But not if you're actively reading it at a specific time. Personally if I hear my phone chime while driving I wait until I pull over. So... no luck there.

Not true, I've seen it often. Fortunately laying on the horn has saved my bacon. Usually I'm stopped (stop sign, parking lot, etc.) or on the highway and some idiot is about to drift into my car.

Just the other month some young woman in an Escalade almost plowed into me in a parking lot. I couldn't move my car because there were people in front and behind me.

She was coming at me perpendicularly, looking down at her phone just plowing forward, driving THROUGH the parking spaces like they weren't even there. I had to lay on my horn, and she barely avoided hitting me. She had to jam on the flippin' brakes.

The kicker, she got pissed off at me for being in her way.

From Microsoft's standpoint... if nothing else the XBox is kind of like a drug pusher that's trying to hook kids while they're young. Kind of like a PR / advertising thing targeted at kids. Spending money to keep from losing (as many) future customers.

MS gets a lot of hate, especially from the young crowd. A lot of Apple and Linux love from the teens if for no other reason than trying to "rebel against 'the man' " And without the XBox, the company is quite boring to a kid. Throw in some group of friends in school bad-mouthing Micro$oft and they may lose him.

So, XBox gets the kids to at least like the idea of Microsoft. After all, they're responsible for bringing them fun games and good memories... and they're not just about Windows and Excel. They're Master Chief! Or at least that's what they're trying to make themselves out to be.

But does Steam list prison as a consequence?

Or does it just say they'll kill your account and thus lose all of your purchases.

The "prison" thing is the headline-grabber here. Not that HBO is against you doing it.