Since you seem unaware of basic finance, I might suggest avoiding commentary in the future.
In the case of a buyout, The purchase price is paid to the owners of the company being bought. Basic capitalism 101, if you buy something the owners get paid. Sprint is a Public corporation, which means ts owners are the stockholders. Therefore, if T-Mobile purchases Sprint, the stockholders get a share of the sale price based on their percentage of ownership (how much stock they own and what kind of stock they own). The specifics change company to company.
This income is then taxed as a capital gain on the tax returns of those who owned the stock.
This is considered a expense for t-mobile. They are buying assets. They are capitalized and expensed over a period of time, based on the type of asset and expected useful life. And while that expense does reduce their tax burden, they also must pay taxes on the new income that comes in. In theory, they carry over a similar profit or loss as Sprint would have had. In fact, on balance, they likely owe more, because they pair down the expenses when they work out all the excess labor and storefront leasing. The big issue is the tax advantages of the loan they will take out, and the ability to take advantage of more deductions by having more assets, rather than the purchase itself.
As far as champagne, the US does not protect that Term. That is why wineries in the santa rosa and napa regions can sell their sparkling wines as champagne. The EU regulates the term champagne as region specific, but the US does not regulate those terms.
I have never seen 'Ice Milk', but I imagine it is similar to the 'frozen dairy dessert' that is bryers. Bryers is falling afoul of Milk fat content requirements, but also other requirments such as not being more than 50% air by volume. I would contend that if there was a good modifier to use that wouldn't give away the game (such as mostly air trapped in frozen milk ala Krustyburger), they would likely keep the ice cream designation on their packaging. I see non-dairy ice cream in my local store all the time without issue. I think the issue in the US is Bryers doesn't want to admit those faults.
Going through all of your examples, I found this one interesting:
bacon is meat
Because bacon is salt cured pork, typically from the pork belly or the back cuts. But you couldn't say bacon is pork, because Turkey bacon is widely accepted as a low sodium, healthier alternative. A consumer might easily not read the packaging, as you suggest, and turkey bacon does not match bacon in smell or taste or texture. So why suggest it is by labeling it bacon and making it look like bacon?
And this is where your being contrary kinda gets weird.. The article notes that the court highlighted your very suggestions - if we see serious confusion all you need do is improve the packaging to emphasize the product is based on non-meat proteins. So your contrariness is odd, as the article agrees with your proposal to use modification language, but the earlier paragraph really suggests that such language ("Some people grab stuff off the shelf without examining the label, based on the picture on the container") is insufficient.
And your final paragraph highlights your real reason for being contrary, you absolutely don't understand what call I the 'costume meat' market. There are several large portions of the market for these products that are not driven by a moral objection to consuming animal products. A number of health problems can be resolved by reducing red meat intake, and for those who like red meat, alternatives that satisfy the desire for red meat foods they are used to are beneficial. Turkey bacon and turkey burgers exist for that very reason. I know a few people who can't eat red meat after abstaining for a time, their bodies don't digest those proteins well. But eating is social as much as a required action for life. Normalizing non-animal-based options that aren't shit that everyone is okay with eating is valuable to them. Then there is the environmental factor. Plant based options that are indistinguishable from the animal-based products have a much lower environmental footprint. In all these cases, while there are those vegetarians who push to abolish animal based food products, overall these products provide options to consumers for whom animal based proteins create challenges and create a market that if widely adopted could be sustainable and improve the environment without outlawing animal-based proteins.
Any business model that relies on a single platform — a single point of failure — is a shitty business model.
To wit - The biggest advice a lot of internet personalities will give to those trying independent content creation is always diversify your revenue streams. A Wall street broker will give the investing advice to diversify your portfolio. A small retail business owner will suggest Diversifying your product offerings to grow business.
That said, I might argue that relying on the existence of the internet as implied by the green AC isn't a shitty business model. The issue of course is that they can't admit that a business model based on virulent attacks on the majority of the population isn't economically viable in the first place.
There is also the issue that getting a trademark doesn't prevent the use of that trademark so long as it is correctly used to identify the specific product, service, or source thereof the mark refers to.
GIft taxes, as far as I can tell, operate differently in the UK from the US. However the burden for any gift taxes owed is assigned similarly in the UK, in that the recipient doesn't owe the taxes, the giver does.
But while the onus is on the giver to report those gifts, it would appear the remedy for such a failure is to seize those gifts or the products thereof, and require the recipient to prove, while devoid of what may be important assets to, say, pay for a solicitor to assist in readying documentation and presenting your evidence to the court, to prove the tax-free nature of those assets. Seems a bit backward to me.
how can someone have wealth on which they haven't paid taxes.
Tax accounting Lesson. (US-based info)
Generally speaking, Gifts are not taxable income to the recipient. A person can give gifts to other individuals of up to $14,000/person/year and it not be subject to the gift tax either.
This is a way the rich reduce estate taxes by giving their children (and their spouses) $14,000/year each, non taxable, transferring wealth from one generation to the next.
These gifts, so long as they are not in excess of $14,000/person/year, are not even necessarily reported to the IRS.Do that over 50 years, and a person would have $700,000 in non-taxed wealth transferred to them.
But really, its that gift of a High-end laptop and an iPhone which show evidence of tax evasion. /s
Prison Bitch is widely used as slang for a male prisoner who 'bottoms' in a (generally) non-consensual sexual relationship between inmates. When a person says "First day, beat someone up or become someone's bitch", they don't mean become someone's gofer.
A site operator can inflate damages in ways a user can not. A site operator can contribute to political campaigns of a State AG. I specifically highlighted that the barrier was the threshold to get investigators looking at criminal action. A site operator of the sites seen abusing the CFAA is a powerful entity which can make things happen in ways a private individual could not.
The topic, based on the title, is cookie banners, and Sites that use cookie banners also have been using them here in the US in an abundance of caution. But it is unlikely they are better with US user's consent. Therefore, while the article mainly discusses the implications of the research in regards to the GDPR, discussions about the applicability of the CFAA to the findings of the research is pertinent to the discussion of cookie banners ignoring user input.
To answer the question, I do not think that ignoring user prefrences from the cookie banner will lead to hacking under the CFAA. The cookie might be seen as fitting under 'exceeding access' claims, but showing sufficent damage to waarant a criminal complaint would be difficult. (remember, the CFAA does not have a private right of action, its a criminal statute.)
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's called 'punishment for acting like a thug'
Because getting kicked off platforms has been so effective at preventing Sargon of Akkad from being an asshole. /s
Outside of the obvious examples of actual bullies using sock puppet accounts to maintain campaigns of harassment even as they get suspended and banned, you seem to misunderstand how Bullying of this type is a malformation of normal "ribbing" behaviors in which reciprocity can not be achieved, which is part of why those who do not suffer bullying have a difficult time understanding the problematic behavior - they see the normal behavior and do not precieve how that behavior is bad. This means your behavioral rules may get the same backlash we keep seeing over moderation over all. Inconsistent applications lead to false positives and false negatives and can embolden bad actors.
The DOJ IG would disagree with you about a ton of characterizations you just made, particularly the "illegally" and "spying" and "presidential Candidate" and "Forged" and "political reasons".
The fact is, these programs Barr instituted are the predicates of the surveillance programs Barr is calling espionage, and were much more expansive and lacked any whiff of legal authority.
Marketing is most definitely a factor in the visability of any ebook regardless of publisher or sales platform. I've gotten a few independently published ebooks in the last few years, and I never would have gone to get them if it weren't for a recommendation or ad putting that book in my sights.
Publishing has been democratized, yet everyone still buys the authors who have "book deals."
Yes and no. A "Book Deal" comes with significantly more than pure publishing services. Why customers buy more books from the major publishing houses has to do with other factors. A major publisher provides marketing and can get your book into stores across the country and print a sufficient stock to keep your book on shelves to keep word of mouth going. They also can provide an advance and provide assistance in booking signing events.
One of the smaller publishers can still get you into much of the country and help you get signing events, even if they can't provide advances or the large marketing push.
Self publishing provides a lot of financial benefits if the book catches on. But as Techdirt highlights, independent creatives need to build a fanbase, connect with those fans, and convert that connection into a reason to buy. And an independent will often have issues percieving the polish of their work. It is why self published works are seen as lower quality in Books and Video Games - these authors/developers have over-estimated the quality of their work - a state of affairs which can happen even to the experienced and/or talented regardless of the quality of the concept. For every "Celeste", there are a hundred "The Slaughtering Grounds" and a dozen mediocre games we never remember.
Its not that I want Random house to serve as a gatekeeper, but that Random House will have some level of competence guaranteed, if by reputation if nothing else.
A related problem, which affects finances, a distributed system is not advertiser friendly either for targeting or distributing adds [sic]
You percieve Twitter or some other entity as retaining some sort of advertising backbone to the protocol. Advertising could remain with the client, who can implement their own advertising and tracking policies. This could also provide spaces for new advertisers to break into social media ads, serving to at least temporarily open up the market.
And as I noted deeper in this thread, Twitter has likely made the calculation that reduced costs in moderation, legal liability, and infrastructure, issues which exploded as twitter grew, would offset losses in ad revenue going forward.
But a lack of centralization doesn't prevent targeted advertising. It rather allows each client to determine what means it will use to fund development. This could, if sold right, retain value in targeted ads. Those users who remain on Targeted ad platforms are therefore open to tracking and targeted ads, compared to those who choose clients with Contextual advertising or donation or sale or membership funding methods. If targeted ads are not valuable without having all the users on one platform, that may be an issue. But Twitter is already expressing with this move that the liabilities of the scale of the centralized silo are so significant they are willing to sell fewer ads by potentially having a smaller user base. So if Targeted ads will inevitably lose value when the user base shrinks, Twitter has likely already made the calculation that reducing overhead by reducing legal liability and infrastructure costs will off set the advertising loss. And then the market can determine where the true value of ads lies.
Your example differs from the current discussion in a number of ways.
AIM, ICQ, Yahoo IM Google IM, ect, in so much as they are protocols, represent a series of incompatible protocols. The all in one clients did a lot of back end lifting, and most if not all could only operate one protocol at a time. So If you were talking to someone on AIM, you used the AIM Protocol with your aol/aim account (Which you could not make from the all in one app), and you couldn't loop in a Google account on the AIM conversation. If you didn't have a Yahoo account, you couldn't send Yahoo IM messages.
Moreover, they all relied on the central silo to work. So when Yahoo IM shutdown, The all in one app couldn't maintain functionality.
What you describe, an all in one app that can push posts to multiple social media feeds and condolidate siloed social media content, exists at least in part. It does not serve the end goal of the discussion of protocols.
The goal here is to create a protocol that does not rely on central silos. Think Bittorrent. The Torrent protocol does not rely on the Bittorrent software, or a central database hosted by Bittorrent. Any person (theoreticaly) can build a tracker, or build a new client, or share content with the network and there is no central gatekeeper or repository.
The protocol being discussed would facilitate non-centralized content (Tweets, photos, memes, gifs, video, polls, ect) distribution which could then be displayed by any compatible client or app, with each app providing its own formatting, filtering, curation and moderation. This is radically different than a consolidation approach.
I imagine The goal, would be once the tech is rolled out in airports as a training tool to get some level of accuracy, they can install passive cameras which can scan your face as you cross the border.
On the post: DOJ Antitrust Boss Delrahim Ignored Hard Data As He Rubber Stamped T-Mobile Merger
Re: Just to ask..
Since you seem unaware of basic finance, I might suggest avoiding commentary in the future.
In the case of a buyout, The purchase price is paid to the owners of the company being bought. Basic capitalism 101, if you buy something the owners get paid. Sprint is a Public corporation, which means ts owners are the stockholders. Therefore, if T-Mobile purchases Sprint, the stockholders get a share of the sale price based on their percentage of ownership (how much stock they own and what kind of stock they own). The specifics change company to company.
This income is then taxed as a capital gain on the tax returns of those who owned the stock.
This is considered a expense for t-mobile. They are buying assets. They are capitalized and expensed over a period of time, based on the type of asset and expected useful life. And while that expense does reduce their tax burden, they also must pay taxes on the new income that comes in. In theory, they carry over a similar profit or loss as Sprint would have had. In fact, on balance, they likely owe more, because they pair down the expenses when they work out all the excess labor and storefront leasing. The big issue is the tax advantages of the loan they will take out, and the ability to take advantage of more deductions by having more assets, rather than the purchase itself.
On the post: Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words
Re: Yes, but...
You miss any of the details which are in place.
As far as champagne, the US does not protect that Term. That is why wineries in the santa rosa and napa regions can sell their sparkling wines as champagne. The EU regulates the term champagne as region specific, but the US does not regulate those terms.
I have never seen 'Ice Milk', but I imagine it is similar to the 'frozen dairy dessert' that is bryers. Bryers is falling afoul of Milk fat content requirements, but also other requirments such as not being more than 50% air by volume. I would contend that if there was a good modifier to use that wouldn't give away the game (such as mostly air trapped in frozen milk ala Krustyburger), they would likely keep the ice cream designation on their packaging. I see non-dairy ice cream in my local store all the time without issue. I think the issue in the US is Bryers doesn't want to admit those faults.
Going through all of your examples, I found this one interesting:
Because bacon is salt cured pork, typically from the pork belly or the back cuts. But you couldn't say bacon is pork, because Turkey bacon is widely accepted as a low sodium, healthier alternative. A consumer might easily not read the packaging, as you suggest, and turkey bacon does not match bacon in smell or taste or texture. So why suggest it is by labeling it bacon and making it look like bacon?
And this is where your being contrary kinda gets weird.. The article notes that the court highlighted your very suggestions - if we see serious confusion all you need do is improve the packaging to emphasize the product is based on non-meat proteins. So your contrariness is odd, as the article agrees with your proposal to use modification language, but the earlier paragraph really suggests that such language ("Some people grab stuff off the shelf without examining the label, based on the picture on the container") is insufficient.
And your final paragraph highlights your real reason for being contrary, you absolutely don't understand what call I the 'costume meat' market. There are several large portions of the market for these products that are not driven by a moral objection to consuming animal products. A number of health problems can be resolved by reducing red meat intake, and for those who like red meat, alternatives that satisfy the desire for red meat foods they are used to are beneficial. Turkey bacon and turkey burgers exist for that very reason. I know a few people who can't eat red meat after abstaining for a time, their bodies don't digest those proteins well. But eating is social as much as a required action for life. Normalizing non-animal-based options that aren't shit that everyone is okay with eating is valuable to them. Then there is the environmental factor. Plant based options that are indistinguishable from the animal-based products have a much lower environmental footprint. In all these cases, while there are those vegetarians who push to abolish animal based food products, overall these products provide options to consumers for whom animal based proteins create challenges and create a market that if widely adopted could be sustainable and improve the environment without outlawing animal-based proteins.
On the post: Author Of California's Bill That Effectively Ends Freelancing Finally Open To Making Changes After Freelancers Lose Jobs & Lawsuit Filed
Re:
But if you are a sole proprietor without incorporating, one of those protections you lose is being treated as an independent business under AB 5.
On the post: Indian Government Sets New Record For 'Internet Shutdown By A Democracy'
Re:
To wit - The biggest advice a lot of internet personalities will give to those trying independent content creation is always diversify your revenue streams. A Wall street broker will give the investing advice to diversify your portfolio. A small retail business owner will suggest Diversifying your product offerings to grow business.
That said, I might argue that relying on the existence of the internet as implied by the green AC isn't a shitty business model. The issue of course is that they can't admit that a business model based on virulent attacks on the majority of the population isn't economically viable in the first place.
On the post: Beyond The Taco: Someone Is Now Trying To Trademark 'Breakfast Burrito'
Re:
There is also the issue that getting a trademark doesn't prevent the use of that trademark so long as it is correctly used to identify the specific product, service, or source thereof the mark refers to.
On the post: Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims
Re: Perhaps a tad over concerned about the UK one
GIft taxes, as far as I can tell, operate differently in the UK from the US. However the burden for any gift taxes owed is assigned similarly in the UK, in that the recipient doesn't owe the taxes, the giver does.
But while the onus is on the giver to report those gifts, it would appear the remedy for such a failure is to seize those gifts or the products thereof, and require the recipient to prove, while devoid of what may be important assets to, say, pay for a solicitor to assist in readying documentation and presenting your evidence to the court, to prove the tax-free nature of those assets. Seems a bit backward to me.
On the post: Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims
Re: Re: Re: Ah the authoritarian/voyeur classics...
Bah, $700,000 to an individual, but if you give it to a couple you end up with $1,400,000.
On the post: Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims
Re: Re: Ah the authoritarian/voyeur classics...
Tax accounting Lesson. (US-based info)
Generally speaking, Gifts are not taxable income to the recipient. A person can give gifts to other individuals of up to $14,000/person/year and it not be subject to the gift tax either.
This is a way the rich reduce estate taxes by giving their children (and their spouses) $14,000/year each, non taxable, transferring wealth from one generation to the next.
These gifts, so long as they are not in excess of $14,000/person/year, are not even necessarily reported to the IRS.Do that over 50 years, and a person would have $700,000 in non-taxed wealth transferred to them.
But really, its that gift of a High-end laptop and an iPhone which show evidence of tax evasion. /s
On the post: Tennessee Deputy Who Baptised An Arrestee And Strip Searched A Minor Now Dealing With 44 Criminal Charges And Five Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
Prison Bitch is widely used as slang for a male prisoner who 'bottoms' in a (generally) non-consensual sexual relationship between inmates. When a person says "First day, beat someone up or become someone's bitch", they don't mean become someone's gofer.
On the post: Guess What? Many Cookie Banners Ignore Your Wishes, So Max Schrems Goes On The GDPR Attack Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
A site operator can inflate damages in ways a user can not. A site operator can contribute to political campaigns of a State AG. I specifically highlighted that the barrier was the threshold to get investigators looking at criminal action. A site operator of the sites seen abusing the CFAA is a powerful entity which can make things happen in ways a private individual could not.
On the post: Guess What? Many Cookie Banners Ignore Your Wishes, So Max Schrems Goes On The GDPR Attack Again
Re: Re: IANAL
The topic, based on the title, is cookie banners, and Sites that use cookie banners also have been using them here in the US in an abundance of caution. But it is unlikely they are better with US user's consent. Therefore, while the article mainly discusses the implications of the research in regards to the GDPR, discussions about the applicability of the CFAA to the findings of the research is pertinent to the discussion of cookie banners ignoring user input.
To answer the question, I do not think that ignoring user prefrences from the cookie banner will lead to hacking under the CFAA. The cookie might be seen as fitting under 'exceeding access' claims, but showing sufficent damage to waarant a criminal complaint would be difficult. (remember, the CFAA does not have a private right of action, its a criminal statute.)
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: TikTok Tries To Stop Bullying On Its Platforms... By Suppressing Those It Thought Might Get Bullied
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's called 'punishment for acting like a thug'
Because getting kicked off platforms has been so effective at preventing Sargon of Akkad from being an asshole. /s
Outside of the obvious examples of actual bullies using sock puppet accounts to maintain campaigns of harassment even as they get suspended and banned, you seem to misunderstand how Bullying of this type is a malformation of normal "ribbing" behaviors in which reciprocity can not be achieved, which is part of why those who do not suffer bullying have a difficult time understanding the problematic behavior - they see the normal behavior and do not precieve how that behavior is bad. This means your behavioral rules may get the same backlash we keep seeing over moderation over all. Inconsistent applications lead to false positives and false negatives and can embolden bad actors.
On the post: DOJ Headed By William Barr Asked To Explain Warrantless Bulk Data Collection William Barr Authorized 27 Years Ago When He Was The Head Of The DOJ
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
The DOJ IG would disagree with you about a ton of characterizations you just made, particularly the "illegally" and "spying" and "presidential Candidate" and "Forged" and "political reasons".
The fact is, these programs Barr instituted are the predicates of the surveillance programs Barr is calling espionage, and were much more expansive and lacked any whiff of legal authority.
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re: Re: Re:
Marketing is most definitely a factor in the visability of any ebook regardless of publisher or sales platform. I've gotten a few independently published ebooks in the last few years, and I never would have gone to get them if it weren't for a recommendation or ad putting that book in my sights.
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re:
Yes and no. A "Book Deal" comes with significantly more than pure publishing services. Why customers buy more books from the major publishing houses has to do with other factors. A major publisher provides marketing and can get your book into stores across the country and print a sufficient stock to keep your book on shelves to keep word of mouth going. They also can provide an advance and provide assistance in booking signing events.
One of the smaller publishers can still get you into much of the country and help you get signing events, even if they can't provide advances or the large marketing push.
Self publishing provides a lot of financial benefits if the book catches on. But as Techdirt highlights, independent creatives need to build a fanbase, connect with those fans, and convert that connection into a reason to buy. And an independent will often have issues percieving the polish of their work. It is why self published works are seen as lower quality in Books and Video Games - these authors/developers have over-estimated the quality of their work - a state of affairs which can happen even to the experienced and/or talented regardless of the quality of the concept. For every "Celeste", there are a hundred "The Slaughtering Grounds" and a dozen mediocre games we never remember.
Its not that I want Random house to serve as a gatekeeper, but that Random House will have some level of competence guaranteed, if by reputation if nothing else.
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You imagine that ad networks, which have existed for decades, do not continue to exist under this system?
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re:
You percieve Twitter or some other entity as retaining some sort of advertising backbone to the protocol. Advertising could remain with the client, who can implement their own advertising and tracking policies. This could also provide spaces for new advertisers to break into social media ads, serving to at least temporarily open up the market.
And as I noted deeper in this thread, Twitter has likely made the calculation that reduced costs in moderation, legal liability, and infrastructure, issues which exploded as twitter grew, would offset losses in ad revenue going forward.
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re: Re: Re:
But a lack of centralization doesn't prevent targeted advertising. It rather allows each client to determine what means it will use to fund development. This could, if sold right, retain value in targeted ads. Those users who remain on Targeted ad platforms are therefore open to tracking and targeted ads, compared to those who choose clients with Contextual advertising or donation or sale or membership funding methods. If targeted ads are not valuable without having all the users on one platform, that may be an issue. But Twitter is already expressing with this move that the liabilities of the scale of the centralized silo are so significant they are willing to sell fewer ads by potentially having a smaller user base. So if Targeted ads will inevitably lose value when the user base shrinks, Twitter has likely already made the calculation that reducing overhead by reducing legal liability and infrastructure costs will off set the advertising loss. And then the market can determine where the true value of ads lies.
On the post: Twitter Makes A Bet On Protocols Over Platforms
Re: Once upon a time
Your example differs from the current discussion in a number of ways.
AIM, ICQ, Yahoo IM Google IM, ect, in so much as they are protocols, represent a series of incompatible protocols. The all in one clients did a lot of back end lifting, and most if not all could only operate one protocol at a time. So If you were talking to someone on AIM, you used the AIM Protocol with your aol/aim account (Which you could not make from the all in one app), and you couldn't loop in a Google account on the AIM conversation. If you didn't have a Yahoo account, you couldn't send Yahoo IM messages.
Moreover, they all relied on the central silo to work. So when Yahoo IM shutdown, The all in one app couldn't maintain functionality.
What you describe, an all in one app that can push posts to multiple social media feeds and condolidate siloed social media content, exists at least in part. It does not serve the end goal of the discussion of protocols.
The goal here is to create a protocol that does not rely on central silos. Think Bittorrent. The Torrent protocol does not rely on the Bittorrent software, or a central database hosted by Bittorrent. Any person (theoreticaly) can build a tracker, or build a new client, or share content with the network and there is no central gatekeeper or repository.
The protocol being discussed would facilitate non-centralized content (Tweets, photos, memes, gifs, video, polls, ect) distribution which could then be displayed by any compatible client or app, with each app providing its own formatting, filtering, curation and moderation. This is radically different than a consolidation approach.
On the post: DHS Wanted To Add US Citizens To The Long List Of People Subjected To Mandatory Face Scans At Airports... But Has Backed Down For Now
Re: There's other ways in and out of the country
I imagine The goal, would be once the tech is rolled out in airports as a training tool to get some level of accuracy, they can install passive cameras which can scan your face as you cross the border.
Next >>