The phrase "zoning amnesty"/"zoning peace" is like the "death tax" or the "green new deal" - a way of rebranding a controversial political issue to make it seem incontroversial and obvious. It's called this precisely so that uninformed citizens will make the same mistake and think "Yes, why should people be homeless over some trivial political bullshit like zoning laws?"
From everything I've been able to find, it was building code amnesty, in effect. The proliferation of these laws in Turkey, dating back all the way to the 1940s, created a culture where builders could basically build what they want, without the necessary permits/code enforcement, confident in the knowledge that they would fall under the next decree of amnesty and never be required to fix it.
"...more than 50 percent of the buildings in Turkey were constructed in violation of the current building code... Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) Ankara branch chair Selim Tulumtaş warned .. that the legislation put the lives of 2.7 million people across the country at risk since they live in shoddily constructed buildings."
https://www.turkishminute.com/2023/02/13/turkey-construction...
"Do no not grind the glow powder or try and dissolve it. On a microscopic level, the glow powder works by an energy exchange in its crystalline structure. These crystals are very small and just appear like a fine powder. When they are mixed with a clear medium as we do with our glow paint, the glow powder does not dissolve, it is just suspended in the medium. If you mix the powder with a medium that causes it to break down and dissolve (like water), the glow will be ruined. The same thing will happen if you grind the glow powder. You crush and destroy the crystal matrix and the energy will not be able to transfer between the glow material molecules causing a dramatic drop in glow brightness."
Law does not work by analogy. The difference is obvious - one of them is an automated computer system, the other is a human. As mentioned above it is not clear whether use/redistribution of this data is legal. But generally speaking, drawing an analogy between a piece of software and a human being is not an argument that will hold any weight in court.
This is the correct answer to any question such as the above. The law is an instrument of power. At the most basic level, its purpose is to uphold the power of a select group of individuals and institutions. The law's purpose is not to bend to logical arguments. If it did, those with the most complete grasp of logic would have the most power, undermining what the law is ultimately designed to do.
How is it any different from an NDA? You have a right to free speech, and a right to willingly enter a contract with another party which constrains that right. Presumably the drivers can break the contract. I’m not condoning F1’s actions here, in fact I think it’s pretty despicable, but it’s not clearly illegal for any obvious reason.
The first amendment is specifically about the government interfering with one's free speech rights - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." It generally doesn't apply in the case of two private parties entering a contract.
A few more clues which are demonstrated, but not explained, by ^this response:
* Begins with a slight rewording of your question, rephrased as the introduction to the answer
* Ends with at least a sentence or two of CYA-type caveats, like "ultimately it will depend on", "there are many factors", etc.
* Writes in full sentences even when not really necessary - eg. this bullet point would be phrased as "Text generated by a language model would be more likely than average to be written in full sentences..."
* Avoids pronouns when any ambiguity is present, even if it would be obvious to a human. eg. If the first sentence is: "Robert and Joe were playing football when Joe injured his hand", a human might continue: "He tried to keep playing but it hurt too badly." ChatGPT would be more like: "Joe tried to keep playing but his hand hurt too badly".
This nicely illustrates one of the fundamental problems of internet comments… it took 30 seconds to write this but it would take me an hour to prove it’s bull.
All true, but when A) your entire business model relies on keeping those IDs hidden and B) you’re storing them on intentionally “promiscuous” media (RFID), it definitely increases the attack surface in a big way.
I’m sure this is a calculated risk, they probably feel confident in their ability to detect unauthorized attempts to read the tags.
