A lie.

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.

... says the father. The district response letter informing them of the disenrollment, and how to stop it, contained no such condition.

The father claims this to a reporter. None of the paperwork from the district carried any such language as a condition of her disenrollment.

A lawsuit really isn't for the money, but to force the mall authority and the police to refresh their officer training on laws of photography, trespass, and private property.

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.

Disobeying authority would have been is she said "no" and walked away. The TSA agents are supposed to be fine with that. The lawsuit is because she did not do that. She decided to make a scene and stage a protest right in the security screening area. She needed to pick her location and time a bit better.

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.

I think providing a true phone number of the caller, and some reasonably verified contact information for the entity using it, is completely reasonable. Yes.

It would be the only way from preventing some boiler room operation with their own PBX posing as some telephone company. "We just provide the phones! We're not responsible for our customers in the cubicles!" Well... then... you pay the fine. You're the last traceable hop.

Will we ever get it? No. No regulatory agency would be able to get past the politics. This contest is a smokescreen to make it look like they're doing something.

Oh that's easy.

Huge fines, but with the added requirement that the phone company must pay it if the caller cannot be identified.

"The phone company" being the company where the trace gets lost. The concept that the sender is responsible for provisioning his own caller id is a ludicrous design flaw. Something more akin to ANI is needed (host based)... plus some very aggressive regulatory enforcement. It's a political 3rd rail, however.

Check me on this.

Haselton has long been an advocate of open mail servers. For the longest time he claimed to have been running one and that he had his own system to control the spam through it. I admit I never really cared what his system of control was. He continued to run one at the same time the industry was quickly realizing that open mail servers were a bigger nuisance than they were worth, so were locking them down to send outgoing mail only from their internal netblocks and terminating the spammers on their own network.

I must assume Bennett's system was not perfect, because the DNS blocklist operators would occasionally list him, at which point he would raise a ruckus about the evils of blocklists rather than accept the facts showing the evils of open mail servers in the first place. This sure feels like an extension of that, with the consequences being applied to his domains instead of his mail servers.

Don't talk to him like a noob, people. Bennett has been around a very, very long time. He has had a beef with DNS distributed blocklists for most of that time. Others publishing their opinions gets in his craw when it interferes with his operations. He comes in here periodically with his latest incident to rally the "freedom to do whatever I want" crowd into a frenzy. He also posts lots of other stuff worth reading. *grin*

If one considers the DBL a list of domains who have appeared in emails to spamtraps, then I would contend that it very possible that the "zero false positive" claim holds up because it very well might have happened. If it claims that all listed entities are domains owned by spam operators, then he might have an argument.

Haselton's fundamental gripe is that he should be free to communicate until a real person decides he shouldn't. The fact that automated systems now make the blocking decision, requiring human intervention to override them, is an inverted model compared to the "old internet." (The necessity came from the raw volume of spam) The death of the "old internet" began with Canter and Siegel. Some of our long-term, asylum residents just haven't accepted that fact.

Oh man. I hope his daughter doesn't have a cellphone.