animalmagic

Who supplies, installs and maintains the facial recognition machines, and what access will they have to the system? How secure is the system from external hackers? It can only work, and then not very well if the reports from UK are true, if the system is based on the passport or some sort of National ID. The data has to be held on the passport/National ID so that the scan check is checking one to one. If the facial recognition data is held on a separate database then the checking will take ages as it is based on a one to very many on a huge database.

It is an issue that affects over half the population directly, and almost all of the population indirectly. It should therefore be decided at a national level to create consistency across the board. To let individual states decide is a cop out for those trying to get elected to the Presidency as they know it is such a potential vote loser they don't want it hanging round their necks. If these people say the states should decide they are abrogating a huge responsibility, but why should it be the states that decide? If it is so important to devolve the decision making perhaps the responsibility for the decision should be devolved to the county or town. Or let's go the whole way and let the pregnant individual decide!

Quid pro quo anyone?

Yes, the only reason the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade is because there have been so many school shootings they are running out of targets!

No, he doesn't really know him well, and they didn't spend much time together.

Careful, some people will think you re listing his good points!

I'm not convinced the driver could be found guilty or charged of murder/homicide (whatever degree) in these circumstances. Depending on the jurisdiction the driver would be guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of armed robbery as it is reasonably obvious what the intended crime was by the actions and preparations of the robbers who he transported to the bank and then waited to help them escape with their ill-gotten gains. Although it may reasonably be inferred that the robbers may use their weapons and kill someone it would be difficult to prove that the getaway driver knew beforehand that they would in fact do so. Even after the shooting occurred the level of criminality committed by the getaway driver does not reach that of culpability for the murder as that has already occurred and he is helping his accomplices to escape. Guilt by association cannot really be used in these circumstances as any prosecution needs to prove the defendant knew or believed that the offence of murder would be committed during the robbery. A driver transporting a criminal to an assassination/drive by shooting however could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a murder in this case. In your scenario above the driver is not present during the commission of the crime (murder) but in my scenario quoted above he is either present during the commission of the crime (drive by shooting), or knew the assassination was the intent of the passenger when transporting him to, and escaping from, the crime.

A person testifying under oath is allowed to recount any experience they have relevant to the investigation and prosecution. Should that person utter hearsay evidence during their testimony it is up to the opposing legal party to object on the basis that it is hearsay. Even if upheld by the Judge then only that hearsay part of the witness' testimony is classified as inadmissible; it does not taint all other testimony given. When a witness/accused lies under oath it does not automatically prove that all other testimony is a lie but is a fact that can be relied upon by the opposing legal team to reduce the value of all other evidence given as it can no longer be trusted. Hearsay evidence does not devalue all other testimony given.

The words of an accused person are NOT hearsay and any individual who personally heard those words can testify to that fact. Hearsay covers when A tries to testify on the basis that B told A what the accused said.

My facts are correct, your understanding of legal terminology and practice are sadly lacking.

Your argument has no basis in logic. We are all responsible for global warming but we have not committed any crimes and cannot be held legally responsible. The judge has decided that Trump could be responsible for a criminal offense and there is a case to answer. The prosecution continues. To conflate global warming with the possibly criminal acts of one person is ludicrous in the extreme. You are simply twisting words to mean what you believe.

Absolutely, buying Twitter was a steal.

A generous donation of 7.2 million baht!? That won't even pay for the brown envelopes.

You may wish to research what 'pearly gates' are a euphemism for. Especially when I was specifically referencing Thailand.

A presumptuous start to any question or statement of opinion. It is not even 'your' entire world, but an imagined construct of a world run according to a view of a single religion and a specific interpretation of it. If your god created the world then why did he create men first? Men do not have the physical capacity to create further life; only women have that after a fleeting dalliance with a male. In nature there are several species where there is only one male in the group and if that male dies then a female of the species changes sex!

Everything in moderation...........including moderation!

I can't remember. Cheers!

I'm sure many people in Thailand have had a shock on reaching what they thought were the 'pearly gates.'

Absolutely correct, if you are not charged a fee then you are the commodity.

The fees for using online payment systems have to be borne by the retailer and this will be reflected in the price charged to every customer. The fees are a cost of business similar to rent, utilities and staff; all of these have an influence on the ticket price of every item. The retailer will not impose a specific surcharge for each online payment because of the reasons you state, but they will increase prices across the board, and this will affect every purchase no matter what the payment method.

The phrase 'race' is something used by online payment providers to suggest it is something that needs to be won; and get more to join. They charge fees for interchange, assessment, e-wallet and payment; these are generally based on what they think they can get away with and not the cost of providing the service. These fees are charged to the retailer accepting the payments and will eventually be reflected in the cost of the item. Every buyer then has to pay more whether using cash or card.

Online payment fraud in 2021 was 20 billion USD, a 14% year on year increase. For ease of reference - 1. The largest ever cash robbery from a vault is recorded to have been in 1972 where 30 million USD was stolen from a vault in California. At today’s values, 30m USD in 1972 is equivalent to 225m USD. 2. The diamond and jewellery part of the industry lost 117 million USD from a vault in Antwerp in 2003. At today’s values 117m USD is 2003 is equivalent to 199m USD. 3. For bullion the largest recorded loss was from a vault in Heathrow in 1983 where 26 million Sterling (approximately 35 million USD) was taken. At today’s values 26m STG in 1983 is equivalent to 110m USD. Basically, the cash, bullion and DnJ industry would have to suffer their 3 biggest historical losses 4 times a month before they exceeded the losses to online payment fraud. Cybercrime losses, in 2021 were estimated at 6 trillion USD, as a whole are much, much worse as it includes online payment fraud plus the financial losses caused by denial-of-service attacks to shut down critical infrastructure and commercial activity, the damage and potential losses caused by the theft of data; and every other way in which the internet impoverishes our lives. The three worst days listed above listed above would have to occur 11,236 times a year to equal total annual cyber-crime losses. Cash is not the criminal's choice!

And how many are using the current ban on school trips to bodge another job to try and ensure they pass inspection? A deeper dive into the ownership of these companies and recent emails and phone calls between DLT officials and the operators should shed some light on the depth of corrupt practices. I'm quite surprised that lawyers from Mercedes Benz have not addressed the DLT to stop operators sticking their logo on buses they have no connection with. Would love to see the contracts offered by the operators on supplying 'Mercedes Benz' vehicles.

I'd be surprised if the permission of MB was asked for.

Some teenage girls can vote.