[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:13:53 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
The August issue of DDJ (Dr. Dobb's Journal) has a small
item about some guy (IIRC) who has spoofed the biometric
fingerprint scanners by digitally photographing a fingerprint
on glass then creating a fake finger. It fooled various
systems (including some w/ so-called "live finger" sensors)
with an ~80% success rate.
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:34 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
>
>
> Agreed...I'm not sure what the parallel is either but maybe JackBoots
> shouldn't be given any ideas...the next thing the DVDCCA will want is
> biometric scanners on the DVD players with the biometric data
> burned into
> the DVD at time or purchase. Not only can they keep track of
> who bought
> it, who can play it, they can even prevent the resale of it......the
> technological tattoo.
>
>
>
>
> "Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 07/23/2002 07:19 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
>
>
> Mickym wrote:
> > "State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing
> by anyone
> > other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld
> > White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to
> have a tattoo is
>
> > a separate issue from the process of tattooing."
> >
> > How does one argue against that?
> >
>
> You probably don't. I can think of quite a few scenarios
> where a "right"
> is only there under certain provisos. You have a "right" to
> be a doctor,
> but
> you can only practice as a doctor if you get qualified to do
> so by certain
> institutions.
>
> You have a "right" to drive, but if you want to do so on
> public highways,
> you
> must have a valid driving licence. Etc.
>
> Public health/safety issues will always infringe a bit on "rights" but
> hopefully, under a sensible regime, both can co-exist without
> excessive
> conflict.
>
> ( In the UK, tattoo artists don't AFAIK have to be doctors,
> but if they're
> not
> members of the Guild of Tattooists (or whatever) I suspect
> no-one would go
> near them! )
>
> --------------
>
> The question is, does the US tattoo case (above) have any
> influence on
> whether
> your DVD player has to be approved by the DVDCCA in order to
> play the DVDs
> *you
> bought* (in the US)?
>
> No public health/safety issues there, surely? :-)
> In fact, I'm having trouble seeing any parallels at all
> between the two!
>
> --
>
> Steve Hosgood |
> steve@caederus.com | "A good plan
> today is better
> Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan
> tomorrow"
> Fax: +44 70922 70944 | -
> Conrad Brean
> --------------------------------------------+
> http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the
> film "Wag the Dog" )
>
>
>
>
>