濮阳东方医院治阳痿价格不贵(濮阳东方医院看男科病口碑非常高) (今日更新中)

The New South Wales government in Australia is now using cameras installed on roads to catch drivers illegally using the phone.Now, there's one state in the U.S. that's trying to make that happen here.There's a councilmember in Montgomery County, Maryland, that wants permission from the state to install these cameras. You can really see everything that's happening in the front seats of cars with these cameras — and that brings up some concerns from groups like the ACLU."One issue is that there will be false positives, there will be photographs where it looks like the person is using their cellphone or on the phone when they're actually not," says Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU. "So everybody will be susceptible to that, there will be ambiguous photographs that police officers will have to look at and decide whether to issue a ticket."AAA also brings up a concern over children in the car being photographed and adds there may also be problems surrounding artificial intelligence. With these cameras, it's up to the computer to decipher if a driver is using their phone and that could lead to problems in places where phones are allowed to be used for GPS purposes but not texting or phone calls.AAA says there are other options. They suggest that places like Maryland stick to enforcement that has been successful in the past."But people, when they are distracted, it's as easy to discern as a person who's driving impaired because they have the same type of driving behavior," says John Townsend with AAA. "And when it comes to distracted driving, the person's eyes are not on the roadway. You can easily detect that."As for the county in Maryland, the council will begin debating the use of cameras in January and, if passed, it'll be the first program of its kind in the United States. 1837

The Homeland Security Department is backing away from requiring that U.S. citizens submit to facial-recognition technology when they leave or enter the country.The department said Thursday that it has no plans to expand facial recognition to U.S. citizens. A spokesman said DHS will delete the idea from its regulatory agenda, where privacy advocates spotted it this week.The advocates and lawmakers accused DHS of reneging on repeated promises not to force American citizens to be photographed leaving or entering the United States, a process that is required for foreign visitors.Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., called the administration’s retreat “a victory for every single American traveler who flies on a plane.” He credited public pressure for the about-face. He said, however, that he still plans to introduce legislation to ban biometric surveillance of Americans.Edward Hasbrouck, a privacy advocate who pointed out the proposal, said the matter might not be settled.“Was this a trial balloon to find out whether the DHS had finally reached the limits of our willingness to be treated like criminals whenever we fly?” he said. “And if so, has the DHS partially backed off, at least for now? Maybe.”Customs and Border Protection officials say they originally considered including U.S. citizens in the biometrics program because having one system for Americans and another for foreigners adds complexity and could compromise security or make lines longer.But after meeting with lawmakers and privacy experts — including this week — it decided it was better to continue letting Americans opt out.Privacy experts have questioned the accuracy of facial recognition and warned that personal information could be vulnerable to hackers or used improperly by companies holding the data. In response to those criticisms, DHS made some changes, including shortening the time it will retain photographs from 14 days to 12 hours. Facial recognition is used to screen passengers at more than a dozen U.S. airports. Some airlines, including Delta and JetBlue, tout it as a convenience for passengers who no longer need to show boarding passes and identification. 2166

The American Lung Association said on Wednesday that it is advocating to the FDA to take action to reduce what it calls "false" claims that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking tobacco. The American Lung Association has a campaign known as "Quit. Don't Switch," which encourages smokers to quit altogether rather than switch to vaping. Vaping, the American Lung Association says, should not be considered a safer alternative to smoking tobacco. "One of the biggest problems with e-cigarettes is that many people have switched to e-cigarettes believing it will help them quit tobacco products, which it doesn't," says Albert A Rizzo, M.D., American Lung Association Chief Medical Officer. "Many of them become dual users, meaning they smoke cigarettes when they can and use vaping devices at other times." Rizzo said that e-cigarettes are having a negative effect on reducing smoking rates by introducing young people to smoking who might be attracted to the products due to the flavors. "E-cigarettes have not been found to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit," Dr. Rizzo said. "They were designed to appeal to people who wanted to use something beside a cigarette, or in addition to a cigarette. Instead of helping smokers quit, e-cigarettes have rapidly created another generation addicted to tobacco products by marketing products that appeal to kids, including flavored products like gummy bear, unicorn blood and bubble gum – even apple juice." 1481

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating religious discrimination claims against two airports because plans for Chick-fil-A restaurants were scrapped after complaints about the fast food chain's stance on LGBTQ issues."The Department of Transportation has received complaints alleging discrimination by two airport operators against a private company due to the expression of the owner's religious beliefs," an FAA statement said."FAA's Office of Civil Rights has notified the San Antonio International Airport (SAT) and Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF) that it has opened investigations into these complaints. The FAA notes that Federal requirements prohibit airport operators from excluding persons on the basis of religious creed from participating in airport activities that receive or benefit from FAA grant funding."CNN has reached out to officials at both airports for comment.Chick-fil-A said in a statement released to CNN that the company is not involved in the investigation. "We are a restaurant company ... and we have no social or political stance," the company said. "We welcome and embrace all people, regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity."In March, the San Antonio city council approved a new concessions contract for the airport -- on the condition that Chick-fil-A be excluded. 1382

The chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Monday said the panel will vote to hold White House counselor Kellyanne Conway in contempt of Congress later this month unless she agrees to appear to testify in a hearing. 233

来源：资阳报