> if the issue is that your privacy is being threatened
You're straw-manning here. The issue isn't privacy in a vacuum. The issue is very directly privacy in the context of the current US government being undeniably and intentionally malicious in a way that few countries anywhere in the world currently are. @YeGoblynQueenne indicates as much by saying "At the very least, in an EU country (and also the UK) you can ...".
The US government currently doesn't give a shit about the law or human rights in ways that are both completely unprecedented and very violent. People have concrete reason to fear the US government right now. That's what the article is about, not merely privacy on its own.
> There are many countries now that don't require a passport to enter - you can simply get a facial scan.
Name all the ones that violently assault and kill people in the street and imprison people for weeks or months or even years without formal charges and ignore court orders to release people who are being illegally imprisoned and then only later comply with the law after injurious delays with the most malicious interpretations if ever.
I considered this, but actually it's a bad strategy if the door is only slightly ajar and not all the way open. The nice thing about my approach is that it works no matter what. Obviously even better if the vehicle can rapidly change from reverse to drive instead of merely slamming the brake.
I've thought about this further. You said it's even better if the vehicle can rapidly change from reverse to drive.
More generally, the bigger the acceleration in the forward direction, the better.
So the best solution is to reverse and crash into a wall. It would bring your speed to 0 almost instantly. Meaning the acceleration would depend on how big your inertia is, not how powerful your brakes are (and the limits of your tyres' traction).
Well yes, obviously, but then we need to balance the cost of closing the door against the cost of repairing the car. And also what if there isn't a convenient wall nearby? :)
This article isn't about facial recognition. It's about the US executive branch repeatedly running roughshod over the law and lying. In that context, your comment is a non sequitur.
Your comment is in reference to something that the comment you were replying to does not mention at all and is not about. That is the definition of a non sequitur.
> "I don't feel safe entering the US anymore"
> "Other countries do facial recognition too"
You see how the two statements are not directly linked.
"our son" would be a tell. Who talks like that about their child to their spouse?
Also emergency rooms in the US have an obligation to treat to stabilization in emergency situations regardless of ability to pay, so if they're demanding payment then it's not actually an emergency.
> the proposed tax will do nothing more than push the extremely small and mobile group of billionaires to take their business elsewhere
This is often claimed but has yet to be shown to actually be true. Billionaires want to live in the nicest places with the best amenities just like everyone else.
But let's pretend for the moment that it is true. Good. Billionaires are not a net positive influence anywhere.
You're straw-manning here. The issue isn't privacy in a vacuum. The issue is very directly privacy in the context of the current US government being undeniably and intentionally malicious in a way that few countries anywhere in the world currently are. @YeGoblynQueenne indicates as much by saying "At the very least, in an EU country (and also the UK) you can ...".
The US government currently doesn't give a shit about the law or human rights in ways that are both completely unprecedented and very violent. People have concrete reason to fear the US government right now. That's what the article is about, not merely privacy on its own.
> There are many countries now that don't require a passport to enter - you can simply get a facial scan.
Name all the ones that violently assault and kill people in the street and imprison people for weeks or months or even years without formal charges and ignore court orders to release people who are being illegally imprisoned and then only later comply with the law after injurious delays with the most malicious interpretations if ever.
reply