This takes the cake:
Quote "... Registrar Kaprielian told the Globe, and that it is the individual's "burden" to clear his or her name of any mistakes made by the RMV."
I sure hope that such nonsense gets "unfunded" soon.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
The last dash doesn't seem to make it via Usenet, you might have to add that by hand.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
I agree. The false positive rate on facial recognition by computer is notoriously bad. There is also a false negative rate too that can annoy people who when late for the plane and under stress at airports do not look like their biometric passports relaxed internal representation.
The really annoying thing is that the bad guys will keep on driving so the system serves only to punish law abiding innocents.
ISTR the very best computer recognition failure rate was around 0.4% and it didn't take much by way of bad lighting to make it much worse. 2-3% was fairly common on the business traveller Iris ID system:
They are getting better, but it is premature to rely on the computer generated match as hard evidence without any additional investigation.
Seems to me like he has a strong claim against them or their contractors for implementing an obviously defective system. It is amazing that they are not obliged to maintain accurate records of false positives in an automated identity system!
UK DVLA are pretty bolshy but this one takes the biscuit!
Regards, Martin Brown
Enclose in the < > symbols...
Cheers
Ha, didn't work...
kinect has the right (?) idea.
Works for me.
Work for me as well. Thanks for the hint, Martin, I didn't know that trick.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
In the past year or so, every couple-few months or so in Philadelphia.
-- - Don Klipstein (don@donklipstein.com)
OK, what browser are you using ? What operating system are you using ?
I saw that as well, until the last "-" was explained.
So, try some of these solutions.
Other wise, shut up !!
u-and-you-and-you-
THAT was the problem; works with the dash added.
Likely a correct statement of a law that the registrar didn't enact, but is charged with implementing.
Sylvia.
If I see a regulation that I cannot support I will not support it. And no, I will not do it even if that has consequences of lost income. First time for me was when the medical device standard didn't require defibrillator-proof interfaces and I thought that was not safe. One has got to stand up for what's right.
That's my 2 cents.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
They should download colonoscopy prints from your Obamacare records off the internet. They're much more reliable.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Nope, won't work, because stuff like that won't be covered for screening :-(
No joke, we received a letter from our HMO that we'd be grandfathered into our plan but if we ever dropped we can only get the "new" plans. That was a rather clear message.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
-you-and-you-
-you-and-you-
You must have mucked the settings in outhouse express.
?-|
That solved the problem for me.
John S
.
:-(
...but they /will/ have copies available from your previous security screenings, a double benefit of the screenings. Plus they'll get to ask you all kinds of questions--enquiring governments need to know.
I was in Houston, in line, when they fired up the naked machine. People were looking at each other, nervously, not wanting to go, but leaving line gets you arrested.
Fortunately the thing was Windows-based. They screened about a dozen people before it went BSOD, saving me from the silver handcuffs.
Yeah, that's the "if you like your policy you can keep it...just hold your breath and don't breathe."
-- Cheers, James Arthur
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.