i dont know how to interact with them and i feel like squishing my face up and acting excited about whatever they are excited about is weird and inappropriate
god damn you chris hansen
I just treat them like stupid faint-hearted adults or small animals.
So walk me through the reasoning you feel the court would use. What is the difference between:
reading a slide lock where you move your finger across the screen and the phone detects a finger and unlocks the phone
and
reading a fingerprint lock where you place your finger on the device and it unlocks the phone.
Remember that your fingerprint is not private. Anyone can have it, the court can demand you produce it, and the hand it's attached to, whenever it wants. They can be copied, lifted from the environment, and shared openly. You can be forced to produce them, including being forced to place your hand on a scanner for recording of the print.
Your fingerprint, to tie you to the scene of a crime or location or for the purposes of identifying you? You are absolutely right.
Your body, however, is yours. Your fingerprint is not what is unlocking the device, it is the unique properties of your body, combined with the fingerprint that does so.
And it appears the supreme court agrees that your body cannot be compelled, especially by law enforcement, to give evidence away that may incriminate you, and that does not allow for escalation to a warrant.
What unique property of your body is required for the unlock?
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i dont know how to interact with them and i feel like squishing my face up and acting excited about whatever they are excited about is weird and inappropriate
god damn you chris hansen
imagine they are an adult who really likes pokemon
Is there not already precedent regarding passwords?
there is. And this a password in which your fingerprint is only one component of.
I do NOT see the courts ruling in favor of police arresting people because they refuse to compromise their right to privacy by being compelled to unlock their phone.
This has search and seizure written all over it.
But we gotta be tough on crime.
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
to play devil's advocate a bit, there are different degrees of fiddling with children.
Yes, but none of them should be dismissed casually the way he does. There is a line to be drawn, and it should be drawn at "fiddling" vs. "not fiddling" children, not at "just mild fiddling that's kinda embarrassing but you can walk it off over time" vs. "serious fiddling".
the publisher's been impossibly slow with our physics books so my professor complained and we got an extended grace period (the homework component is online) so we don't have to buy the wiley plus code independently
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Congrats, Dawkins. You've successfully given Christians a quote tying Atheists directly to pedophilia.
Can I just do my I told you so dance over here or
Well, it was bound to happen when atheists started proclaiming a cranky old pseudo-scientist as some kind of Atheist Messiah.
Hold on there sparky. We never proclaimed him anything of anything. Just like black folks never claimed Al Sharpton was the spokesperson for black folks. Dawkins just happens to the mean old man that gets in front of the cameras and says the best crazy shit for the papers.
Last week, I had a on an Amish trade show. It was mostly about power tools, but there was another other thing that we didn't mention in the online version: The booth selling computers to the Amish.
The key selling point, perhaps not surprisingly, is all the things the computer doesn't do. Like the sign says: No Internet, no video, no music.
Yeah, I need to get over to amish country and start selling flash drives with portable versions of software to the kids.
Wonder how much a 4g dongle would go for.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
So walk me through the reasoning you feel the court would use. What is the difference between:
reading a slide lock where you move your finger across the screen and the phone detects a finger and unlocks the phone
and
reading a fingerprint lock where you place your finger on the device and it unlocks the phone.
Remember that your fingerprint is not private. Anyone can have it, the court can demand you produce it, and the hand it's attached to, whenever it wants. They can be copied, lifted from the environment, and shared openly. You can be forced to produce them, including being forced to place your hand on a scanner for recording of the print.
Your fingerprint, to tie you to the scene of a crime or location or for the purposes of identifying you? You are absolutely right.
Your body, however, is yours. Your fingerprint is not what is unlocking the device, it is the unique properties of your body, combined with the fingerprint that does so.
And it appears the supreme court agrees that your body cannot be compelled, especially by law enforcement, to give evidence away that may incriminate you, and that does not allow for escalation to a warrant.
What unique property of your body is required for the unlock?
It is your "fingerprint", including subdermal layers caught via the image. And checked for depth as well.
So someone else with your exact same "fingerprint" would not unlock the phone, unless they also through some mega-lottery odds had the same subdermal structure as you.
This isn't an ink fingerprint, and it isn't reproducible. So unless we are expanding the definition of what comprises a fingerprint to law enforcement to include high resolution mutli layered 3D biometric readings, then this doesn't really count.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
I was prepared for it to be worse than it was. It was relatively harmless.
Yes, this seemed more like him feeling we need to be really careful about creating demons where there are none.
On the one hand I am very much against, vocally so, the current pedophilia hysteria and the absolutely toxic effects it is having on society and on an issue that really should be approached with compassion and nuance rather than self-righteous assholery. On the other hand dude has issues. "Mild touching up" is a problem, a current problem, and just as it shouldn't be pursued with pitchforks and torches it should be left to neverdonemenoharmism
i dont know how to interact with them and i feel like squishing my face up and acting excited about whatever they are excited about is weird and inappropriate
god damn you chris hansen
I was at a barbeque and there was a kid (toddler? I think he was like, 2 and a half, I dunno what those age divisions are) who went out doors which I guess he was not supposed to do. I was nearest the door so I started kind of jogging after him like, hey, no, stahp, why are you running away babby, you're supposed to stay in. Meanwhile I was just kind of looking back at the other adults/parents trying to get clarification on like, if I'm supposed to pick this kid up and drag him back or like, try to reason with him.
Children substantially compound my already bad enough social retardation.
i dont know how to interact with them and i feel like squishing my face up and acting excited about whatever they are excited about is weird and inappropriate
god damn you chris hansen
imagine they are an adult who really likes pokemon
Is there not already precedent regarding passwords?
The issue here is that a fingerprint is not a password.
Eh. It basically is. Or a key.It's just one that is mostly attached to your body.
Noooo according to the courts it is entirely different.
But Synd has a good explanation of why a mere print isn't good enough, and that might get you bootstrapped to "biometric ID" on the level of a DNA sample and the court can't compel you to provide one of those.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
There really shouldn't be precedent regarding passwords. That there is is terrible
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Is there not already precedent regarding passwords?
The issue here is that a fingerprint is not a password.
Fingerprints can be left behind in the same way that blood or hair or other fluids / matter can be left behind.
The action of using a fingerprint is a totally different demand.
I'm not sure it is. You can be forced to "use" your fingerprint now.
I would love for you to find me one case where a person was compelled to use their fingerprint to unlock potential new discovery of evidence, as opposed to as a tool to tie a suspect to evidence they have already collected.
edit: we have had simple biometrically locked laptops (which are crude in comparison to the new apple toy and much easier to break into) since the 90s - has there been a single case in 20 years?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
i dont know how to interact with them and i feel like squishing my face up and acting excited about whatever they are excited about is weird and inappropriate
god damn you chris hansen
I was at a barbeque and there was a kid (toddler? I think he was like, 2 and a half, I dunno what those age divisions are) who went out doors which I guess he was not supposed to do. I was nearest the door so I started kind of jogging after him like, hey, no, stahp, why are you running away babby, you're supposed to stay in. Meanwhile I was just kind of looking back at the other adults/parents trying to get clarification on like, if I'm supposed to pick this kid up and drag him back or like, try to reason with him.
Children substantially compound my already bad enough social retardation.
i think you are supposed to slide tackle them in that situation?
to play devil's advocate a bit, there are different degrees of fiddling with children.
Yes, but none of them should be dismissed casually the way he does. There is a line to be drawn, and it should be drawn at "fiddling" vs. "not fiddling" children, not at "just mild fiddling that's kinda embarrassing but you can walk it off over time" vs. "serious fiddling".
that reminds me
there was a case here with "the pocket man"
who asked children to help him get his keys out of his pocket and there was no pocket just his penis.
his defense lawyer was... I'm not sure he was the right choice.
to translate as faithfully as I can, it was a weird old dude saying "children aren't harmed from being tampered with a little."
not something like, for them it was just accidentally touching a guy's penis, that's not all that traumatizing and that should be taken into account and he shouldn't be sentenced as harshly as someone who is touching a child from a position of trust, etc
but no, phrase it the absolute worst way.
although that defense lawyer was a prostitute at the age of 12, so, I dunno what kind of statement you could expect.
Posts
I just treat them like stupid faint-hearted adults or small animals.
AS AN ATHEIST...
Who is this Dawkins fellow? Why do I care what he says?
What unique property of your body is required for the unlock?
imagine they are an adult who really likes pokemon
then talk to them
But we gotta be tough on crime.
NOTHING
yes but the fact it is possible to fiddle with kids without traumatising them doesn't make it OK
like, the problem is not necessarily so much the trauma as the abuse of trust/power
Which is why sentencing allows for differing lengths of punishment.
The issue here is that a fingerprint is not a password.
He's the Atheist Pope.
Yes, but none of them should be dismissed casually the way he does. There is a line to be drawn, and it should be drawn at "fiddling" vs. "not fiddling" children, not at "just mild fiddling that's kinda embarrassing but you can walk it off over time" vs. "serious fiddling".
There is still a context to it. Our history includes times when it was normal to diddle kids.
no thats lady gaga
Fingerprints can be left behind in the same way that blood or hair or other fluids / matter can be left behind.
The action of using a fingerprint is a totally different demand.
Didn't you take the Athiest Catechism which states that everything Dawkins says must be accepted with absolute 100% faith?
No?
Heretic! Cast him out of the faith...er, wait a second here...
the publisher's been impossibly slow with our physics books so my professor complained and we got an extended grace period (the homework component is online) so we don't have to buy the wiley plus code independently
So I should continue on not paying attention to his existance you say?
Will do!
Hold on there sparky. We never proclaimed him anything of anything. Just like black folks never claimed Al Sharpton was the spokesperson for black folks. Dawkins just happens to the mean old man that gets in front of the cameras and says the best crazy shit for the papers.
Yeah, I need to get over to amish country and start selling flash drives with portable versions of software to the kids.
Wonder how much a 4g dongle would go for.
It is your "fingerprint", including subdermal layers caught via the image. And checked for depth as well.
So someone else with your exact same "fingerprint" would not unlock the phone, unless they also through some mega-lottery odds had the same subdermal structure as you.
This isn't an ink fingerprint, and it isn't reproducible. So unless we are expanding the definition of what comprises a fingerprint to law enforcement to include high resolution mutli layered 3D biometric readings, then this doesn't really count.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I think I like the actual current pope a little more than Dawkins to be honest.
On the one hand I am very much against, vocally so, the current pedophilia hysteria and the absolutely toxic effects it is having on society and on an issue that really should be approached with compassion and nuance rather than self-righteous assholery. On the other hand dude has issues. "Mild touching up" is a problem, a current problem, and just as it shouldn't be pursued with pitchforks and torches it should be left to neverdonemenoharmism
Eh. It basically is. Or a key.It's just one that is mostly attached to your body.
I'm not sure it is. You can be forced to "use" your fingerprint now.
I was at a barbeque and there was a kid (toddler? I think he was like, 2 and a half, I dunno what those age divisions are) who went out doors which I guess he was not supposed to do. I was nearest the door so I started kind of jogging after him like, hey, no, stahp, why are you running away babby, you're supposed to stay in. Meanwhile I was just kind of looking back at the other adults/parents trying to get clarification on like, if I'm supposed to pick this kid up and drag him back or like, try to reason with him.
Children substantially compound my already bad enough social retardation.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
hey small human
look at this pikachu?
charizard is the good one, right?
*nervous chuckle*
<.<
>.>
HOW THE FUCK DO I GET PAST THE SNORLAX YOU TWERP
TELL ME
Scientist who was once a leading man in his field and is now a bit of a dick vs man who literally protects child rapists?
Noooo according to the courts it is entirely different.
But Synd has a good explanation of why a mere print isn't good enough, and that might get you bootstrapped to "biometric ID" on the level of a DNA sample and the court can't compel you to provide one of those.
I would love for you to find me one case where a person was compelled to use their fingerprint to unlock potential new discovery of evidence, as opposed to as a tool to tie a suspect to evidence they have already collected.
edit: we have had simple biometrically locked laptops (which are crude in comparison to the new apple toy and much easier to break into) since the 90s - has there been a single case in 20 years?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
i think you are supposed to slide tackle them in that situation?
Because while it does usually take courts a billion years to adjust to new technology, they sometimes actually do.
Wasn't that his predecessor who just stepped down?
Or has new pope been continuing to do so?
that reminds me
there was a case here with "the pocket man"
who asked children to help him get his keys out of his pocket and there was no pocket just his penis.
his defense lawyer was... I'm not sure he was the right choice.
to translate as faithfully as I can, it was a weird old dude saying "children aren't harmed from being tampered with a little."
not something like, for them it was just accidentally touching a guy's penis, that's not all that traumatizing and that should be taken into account and he shouldn't be sentenced as harshly as someone who is touching a child from a position of trust, etc
but no, phrase it the absolute worst way.
although that defense lawyer was a prostitute at the age of 12, so, I dunno what kind of statement you could expect.