Several of you around here still seem to have your head in the sand that this country is turning into a Big Brother police state. I'm just going to reserve this thread to continuall post the latest evidence of such. I give you the SCOTUS decision allowing cops to take your DNA immediately upon arrest well before you've been charged much less convicted of a crime. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130603/DA6MB4680.html
It's timely, because CBS is returning its sh!tty Big Brother show to the airwaves soon. It's summer after all
And, if you have, then you're in deep trouble. Interesting to note that three of the four dissenters are so-called left of center.... I think it's good that this guy got caught. I really don't have a problem with that process. Oh my, I just said I agreed with right wing justices of the Supreme Court.:hororr:
Well, it is an interesting question. So SicEm, do you also believe that fingerprinting is a violation of your rights as well? In other words, is this any different than fingerprinting? I'm willing to bet fingerprinting and a fingerprinting database has led to the capture of thousands of criminals that would have never been caught. Why is DNA different? (BTW, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but am curious to hear the debate).
I dunno, soon as I realized I might have crossed over, my heart started racing, shortness of breath, tingling down my left arm...
Good question. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to differentiate, at this point, between different types of biometrics which should leave the door open for iris scans as well. However, I absolutely don't believe in being forced to give the government anything until you're actually convicted of a crime and that includes fingerprints. However many criminals have been caught using various forms of biometrics is well beside the point. Mandatory surveillance cameras in every single room of every home and on every street corner would also help catch a lot of criminals, but hopefully as a society we're not willing to go that far. I just wish we weren't so accepting of the government's demand that we give them deeply personal identifying information for a national database until we're actually convicted of having done something wrong and illegal.
Go ahead and just record everyone's DNA at birth. Dead body? Easily identifiable. Rape case? Instantly know who the perp is. Any crime where the perp left hair or blood or tissue behind? Case solved.
That'll be awesome. When you innocently brush your hair in your friends bathroom and leave a few strands behind after you're done and leave their house. Then two hours later your friend is brutally murdered. Nice knowing you.
If you have no reasonable assumption of privacy, there's no problem with it. For example: if you walk on a street and are photographed and that photograph is used to ID as being a fugitive, you really have no complaint. Likewise if you leave fingerprints on a water glass as a restaurant. You left them voluntarily, you got up and walked away. Or if you leave the aforementioned hair follicles, chew gum and spit it out, spit on the street or any of a number of things you might do and leave DNA behind. It's a question of invasiveness. And, barring profiling or some other police misconduct, collection of DNA during a stop is just not a big intrusion. I think that the time and energy spent on 'issues' such as this detract from more important fights and simply dilute the civil liberties cause.
These are two very different things. It is a little creepy being recorded so many places but in public spaces you don't have the expectation of privacy. In your home that's a different matter but we're nowhere near that sort of threat. Unless you're on probation or something no court would allow that. Your neighbor could have cameras installed in his own house for his own security (but may have to put up a sign notifying visitors of such and can't do it in areas where privacy is expected).
If you're visiting your friend two hours before s/he is murdered you're going to be questioned anyway. You'd probably be best to go ahead and tell them you were there and you used his/her brush. So in that case having your DNA ahead of time probably isn't going to make a difference...
I'd like to think probably is not a good strategy for my defense. You may want to read my next post about how DNA isn't so statistically cracked up as the government would have you believe.
