Interesting! The privacy laws are much stronger there than the US. I suspect, then, that people wearing google glass and other such devices that automatically identify license plates or faces and bring up information about them may also be considered invasions of privacy.
We have a Storm Trooper who reports back to Vader.
I don't see how, if that information is readily accessible to someone doing a google search.
The issue is they used a database made by the Department for Motor vehicles...which they themselves gave most of the info to, but they never properly filed to request access to said database. The information what license plate belongs to whom isn't publicly available.
Ah, fair enough. Yeah, lack of proper channels would definitely invalidate any investigation here, too.
Well, they finally (quietly) posted the revenue for 12/1... and it's less than 10% of what it was before the day disappeared. This is what I'm talking about. I don't know if the previous amount was a mistake it took them 15 days to correct, or if the previous amount was accurate and they just wanted time for me to forget about it before they slipped in a new number that looks more "in line" with my usual numbers. There's no way to tell.
The contention isn't really about looking for someone who has committed a crime, it is instead about the bulk retention of data for all the scanned plates that are NOT part of any ongoing investigation, i.e., "domestic surveillance."
15.
Yes. You can interpret it as fry to the fry equals 2. Which would clearly not be solved easily.
Holiday roa-HOH-OH-OH-OH-OH-OAD
Close. The last fry symbol is a single fry, or 1/2f, or 1
