Too Much Fingerprinting

Did you read about the Disney plan to use anew fingerprint technology to fingerprint visitors to their theme parks in order "to detect ticket fraud"? The idea is to prevent sharing or resale of those multi day passes people use to get into Magic Kingdom and other Disney venues.
I don't quite understand how the buyer's identity will be revealed by the fingerprinting, given that it first must be coded on the ticket in some way. But the technology isn't what alarms me. I think the fact that a business is planning to fingerprint consumers is hardly a good thing, and for a democracy like the U.S. it smacks of the tactics of dictatorships. This idea leads me to imagine our identity being lost to corporations and governments to the extent that anonymity is impossible.
Is that a good thing? Don't humans have the right to privacy? In a sense, Disney and whomever else uses the technology will be stealing the identity of consumers. One can envision Disney selling information to other businesses about the users so they might track and steer them to their products. In my view, in this democracy, a court should forbid such tactics by businesses. The right of privacy is one guarantor that a government or commercial enterprise will have a more difficult time in abusing citizens. It's bad enough today that our electronic behavior is being tracked to some degree. Encouraging a wholesale business tracking is not a good thing. What do you think? Should the Disney plan be forbidden or allowed? Is it ever a crime to make noises like a cat? And should the law even give time to such a complaint.
We may find out soon enough as this month's most frivolous lawsuit is now before a court in Pennsylvania. A Jeannette ,Pennsylvania judge is being asked to decide whether that word is a harmless taunt or grounds for misdemeanor harassment. Police have charged a 14-year-old boy with that crime. Michael Loughner is accused of meowing whenever he sees his 78-year-old neighbor, Alexandria Carasia.
Haha No, Michael isn't afflicted with Turette's Syndrome or any other disability. He doesn't think he's a cat and the meowing isn't a compulsion. It 's all because Michael is angry after his family got rid of their cat following Ms. Carasia's complaints that it was using her flower garden as a litter box. Now, she said, the boy makes meowing sounds every time he sees her. He said he's only meowed at her twice. But Alexandra has a different story for the judge. "I've had to put up with this for three years," Carasia said. "As I walk by, I see Michael and his mother. He got on the porch and hid behind the bamboo screen and starts meowing. If I don't make this stop now, they're going to keep doing this to me. I shouldn't have to worry about walking out of the house and being harassed by this young kid."
I have no idea as to why a court is wasting time on such a complaint It's enough to make me meow and I might become catty if I try to figure out this stupidity. But here is more of the details of the lawsuit. Michael claims that sometime in July he went out to hold his dog so it wouldn't leave the yard as Carasia walked by. "She was walking through and she kept looking at us," he testified. "I grabbed the dog so it wouldn't leave the yard. When I put my head down, I meowed." He said that was one of the two times he's ever meowed at the woman. "As she walked in front of the house, nothing was said," the boy's mother, Sally Loughner, told the court. "He stepped off the porch to make sure the dog didn't get out. As he reached down and got the dog, he said, 'Meow.' ... She said, 'Do you want me to call the cops again?' I said, 'Go ahead, he hasn't done anything wrong.'"
Sally told the court that she ended up sending her cat to live with family members so that she could "keep peace in the neighborhood." And in a lone moment of sensibility, defense attorney David Martin Jr. asked that the case be dropped. "This should never have been filed," Martin said. "This is not something that police should be wasting their time with or wasting the court's time." The judge heard from both parties Tuesday. He decided to wait 90 days before ruling, saying he'll decide what to do after seeing how the boy and his neighbor get along in the meantime.
I think the whole lot of them should be confined in a kennel........