ForumGarden

There is concern in Orange County, California, that a program they have there is undermining the privacy rights of defendants. They are calling the program "Spit and Acquit".

People who are charged with minor crimes are released if they provide a DNA sample.

How do you feel about the government collecting this information from its citizens?

Perhaps it depends on the level of government and who subsequently has access to the information, don't you think.

What does "Coercion of Privacy Rights" mean? That's why I came into the thread.

Someone has "Privacy Rights"? Who? On what basis does he have them?

And he's coerced into giving them up? How is it a right if he can abdicate it? People can't abdicate rights, surely they can only abdicate privileges.

Kindle;1183857 wrote: People who are charged with minor crimes are released if they provide a DNA sample.

How do you feel about the government collecting this information from its citizens?


This is an outrage, on two or three counts, at least. I didn't know that the 'States was constructing a DNA database as well, I thought this sort of thing was restricted to the Gov't. of Airstrip One.

How do you feel about a government that has the DNA of over 5.1 million people of which more than 800,000 are innocent of any crime. Or one that wants to keep records of EVERY phone call,email and every website you visit. How about a government that uses anti terror laws to spy on its own citizens recycling or picking up dog dirt etc.

FUBAR;1183892 wrote: How do you feel about a government that has the DNA of over 5.1 million people of which more than 800,000 are innocent of any crime. Or one that wants to keep records of EVERY phone call,email and every website you visit. How about a government that uses anti terror laws to spy on its own citizens recycling or picking up dog dirt etc.


Me?

I'm all for it. DNA and other biometric registration onto the national police database at birth, everyone else registered and cross-checked whenever they apply for any government-issued benefit or permit like a passport or driving licence. The ensuing reduced crime level more than outweighs any "privacy" issue. When was privacy ever considered a right anyhow? How was it defined and what exceptions existed?

spot;1183894 wrote: Me?

I'm all for it. DNA and other biometric registration onto the national police database at birth, everyone else registered and cross-checked whenever they apply for any government-issued benefit or permit like a passport or driving licence. The ensuing reduced crime level more than outweighs any "privacy" issue. When was privacy ever considered a right anyhow? How was it defined and what exceptions existed?


Why stop there ? Police state monitoring of all phone calls, e-mails, texts, written mail. Why not electronic tagging like they use in cars. Trackers I think they call them. Every citizen's whereabouts known at all time. GPS implants would work.



Sorry I dont see why you dont think privacy is an issue. Who gets the right to look into my living room window ? Who gets the right to read my letters. Potentialy reduced crime level certainly doesnt outweigh any loss of privacy. Its a basic human rights issue surely. I dont buy into the "well if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

Snowfire;1183905 wrote: Sorry I dont see


My thoughts, but I wasn't going to take the bait.

Bill Sikes;1183907 wrote: My thoughts, but I wasn't going to take the bait.


I might still regret it

Snowfire;1183905 wrote: Why stop there ? Police state monitoring of all phone calls, e-mails, texts, written mail. Why not electronic tagging like they use in cars. Trackers I think they call them. Every citizen's whereabouts known at all time. GPS implants would work.



Sorry I dont see why you dont think privacy is an issue. Who gets the right to look into my living room window ? Who gets the right to read my letters. Potentialy reduced crime level certainly doesnt outweigh any loss of privacy. Its a basic human rights issue surely. I dont buy into the "well if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"


Neither do I buy into it. It's purely a matter of utility. I don't stop there, I didn't say I stopped anywhere, I'm all for total transparency of every act of every citizen every second, day and night, birth to death. By all means describe it as "basic human rights" though it obviously isn't, you only need to consider the current state of surveillance to realize that it's a matter of acceptance rather than principle.

I'm not looking for "potentialy reduced crime level", I'm looking for the immediate attribution of every unlawful act to its perpetrator at the moment the crime's committed. For one thing I think it'll reduce the number of events society deems criminal, for another it might finally get light shed on what's considered a sensible reaction.

I'd also guarantee that at least the same degree of surveillance applies to the enforcers and legislators as it does to the rest of us, they need just as much oversight.

spot;1183927 wrote: Neither do I buy into it. It's purely a matter of utility. I don't stop there, I didn't say I stopped anywhere, I'm all for total transparency of every act of every citizen every second, day and night, birth to death. By all means describe it as "basic human rights" though it obviously isn't, you only need to consider the current state of surveillance to realize that it's a matter of acceptance rather than principle.

I'm not looking for "potentialy reduced crime level", I'm looking for the immediate attribution of every unlawful act to its perpetrator at the moment the crime's committed. For one thing I think it'll reduce the number of events society deems criminal, for another it might finally get light shed on what's considered a sensible reaction.

I'd also guarantee that at least the same degree of surveillance applies to the enforcers and legislators as it does to the rest of us, they need just as much oversight.


You'd need every citizen to agree to such surveillance otherwise you reduce a population to a toy, a plaything for enforcers to do as they wish. To observe like an ant colony. That wouldnt amount to transparancy. Who enforces the enforcer ?

Are there parameters to how deeply the survaillance digs and probes or once the "serious" crimes become a thing of the past, do the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour change. One minute car theft is a serious crime, its wiped out so we need other serious crimes. Littering maybe. Who makes THAT decision ?

Its all too Orwellian for my liking.

There has and always will be a measure of crime in a society. The manifestation of the crimes may change but I dont think the percentage of criminals to population is all that different over the last few hundred years. That ratio may have even dropped. Understanding why and dealing with the reasons is surely better than restricting our freedoms.

I'm certainly not in favour of handing over such powers of survaillance to a government and you would never get such acceptance from the populace as to make it work. That such as we have has been surreptitiously foisted upon the public with the excuse I used in my previous post. " If you aint done nothing wrong, you aint got nothing to worry about "

That level of probing into privacy which you demonstrate in your post would need to be executed forcibly and that presumably would be by a Fascist regime, would it not ?

spot;1183894 wrote: Me?

I'm all for it. DNA and other biometric registration onto the national police database at birth, everyone else registered and cross-checked whenever they apply for any government-issued benefit or permit like a passport or driving licence. The ensuing reduced crime level more than outweighs any "privacy" issue. When was privacy ever considered a right anyhow? How was it defined and what exceptions existed?


Got things back to front have you not? As a society we give authority to our government and join together to make laws and instruct various bodies to uphold those laws. If said authority wants to take away my privacy the reason has best be a really good one. Privacy is not a right that someone has given you it is yours in the first place that you either give it up voluntarily, (or some aspects of it) or have taken away from you.

The "authorities" have authority because it has been given to them or because it has been taken by force. The authority of kings, for example, was imposed and the populace convinced over the years it was best not to challenge that authority-either by fear or by using the concept if the divine right of kings to kid people. We've progressed a long way and had many wars over the very issue of who has the right to rule.

If you're daft enough to think you don't have a right to pursue your life without interference that's your look out personally I think the question should be the other way round. I have a right to privacy if someone wants to intrude on that they had better be able to put a very good case. If the police any to investigate someone they have reason to suspect may have committed a crime and intrude on their privacy to do so they have the broad agreement of society to do so. Allowing them to build up a dossier on everyone on the country just because they can now do so is not something anyone-unless of course they would rather live in a police state-should allow any government to get away with.

posted by spot

I'd also guarantee that at least the same degree of surveillance applies to the enforcers and legislators as it does to the rest of us, they need just as much oversight.


Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs?

Snowfire;1183905 wrote: Why stop there ? Police state monitoring of all phone calls, e-mails, texts, written mail. Why not electronic tagging like they use in cars. Trackers I think they call them. Every citizen's whereabouts known at all time. GPS implants would work.



Sorry I dont see why you dont think privacy is an issue. Who gets the right to look into my living room window ? Who gets the right to read my letters. Potentialy reduced crime level certainly doesnt outweigh any loss of privacy. Its a basic human rights issue surely. I dont buy into the "well if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"


You make it sound like the current government have not been trying to bring this in since they got into power.

Bryn Mawr;1184019 wrote: You make it sound like the current government have not been trying to bring this in since they got into power.


I wouldnt like to pretend they havent but it doesnt make it any less unsavoury.

There were reports a few years ago that said local councils had planned on snooping on our levels of rubbish disposal by means of some widget attached to our wheelie bins. I checked mine after every time it had been in the street and swore I would ram it firmly up my local councillors rear end.

I'm not daft enough to think they dont try it on

Snowfire;1184029 wrote: I wouldnt like to pretend they havent but it doesnt make it any less unsavoury.

There were reports a few years ago that said local councils had planned on snooping on our levels of rubbish disposal by means of some widget attached to our wheelie bins. I checked mine after every time it had been in the street and swore I would ram it firmly up my local councillors rear end.

I'm not daft enough to think they dont try it on


That was just an attempted stealth tax rather than a serious try for personal information but a tracker in every car, monitoring all movements to within fifteen feet coupled with the ability to control the maximum speed of any car wherever is was at any time - frightening what they could do with power like that.

Please excuse my ignorance but, could somebody tell me exactly how a DNA database, that includes a sample of my own, would take away my privacy.

OpenMind;1184059 wrote: could somebody tell me exactly how a DNA database, that includes a sample of my own, would take away my privacy.


It doesn't - *purely in itself*.

Bill Sikes;1184147 wrote: It doesn't - *purely in itself*.


Thanks for that.

So the debate here is down to who uses such a database and for what purpose. I see advantages as well as disadvantages.

OpenMind;1184165 wrote: Thanks for that.

So the debate here is down to who uses such a database and for what purpose. I see advantages as well as disadvantages.


Erm, putative database, if you're referring to compulsory sampling of the entire population. Are you referring to compulsory sampling of the entire population?

I'm not sure why you're thanking me, BTW- the collection of any data does not necessarily invade one's privacy - but it can. Surely that's quite obvious?

Bill Sikes;1184169 wrote: Erm, putative database, if you're referring to compulsory sampling of the entire population. Are you referring to compulsory sampling of the entire population?



I'm not sure why you're thanking me, BTW- the collection of any data does not necessarily invade one's privacy - but it can. Surely that's quite obvious?


I'm thanking you because you answered my question. That's all.

My problem, you see, is why people generally fear the existence of a DNA database. I would only fear it if it became possible to replicate a person's DNA.

If I am going about my normal non-criminal life doing what I do, I leave a 'trail' by which anyone with the know how can trace me. My DNA on a database can't do that unless I spit on everything I pass or leave a trail of blood.

If you're talking about crime detection, then DNA evidence is certainly not always an accurate pointer to guilt - however, such is the weight attached to it, that it is perhaps often seen as such.

However, I feel that we're diverging from the original point of this thread, so I will not go further in it. Feel free to start another if you wish.

OpenMind;1184179 wrote: I'm thanking you because you answered my question. That's all.

My problem, you see, is why people generally fear the existence of a DNA database. I would only fear it if it became possible to replicate a person's DNA.

If I am going about my normal non-criminal life doing what I do, I leave a 'trail' by which anyone with the know how can trace me. My DNA on a database can't do that unless I spit on everything I pass or leave a trail of blood.


I for one am against it in principle. Just as I am against any type of identity card. I'm not a number I'm a free man

I just detest the though of us all lining up do do a compulsary DNA test. I'm glad for anyone that would like to volunteer, if they think it would keep them safe in their beds. It just seems all too oppressive to me. This government and its departments have lost more personal data than you could shake a million sticks at. I dont trust the government to handle it in my best interest. They're not proposing it for my benefit but for theirs.

Snowfire;1184182 wrote: I for one am against it in principle. Just as I am against any type of identity card. I'm not a number I'm a free man



I just detest the though of us all lining up do do a compulsary DNA test. I'm glad for anyone that would like to volunteer, if they think it would keep them safe in their beds. It just seems all too oppressive to me. This government and its departments have lost more personal data than you could shake a million sticks at. I dont trust the government to handle it in my best interest. They're not proposing it for my benefit but for theirs.


Freedom comes at a price particularly if we want the benefits of a civilization. A DNA databank doesn't tell anyone about my private life. If they put cameras in my home, then my privacy would be invaded. If you're a criminal, then the DNA databank would be something to fear.

Governments are all about control and we legitimise their existence by voting for them. If we want a civilised society, we need some form of government.

This notion that a DNA databank invades our privacy is a notion the papers started just to sell their papers.

If being able to prove who I am is an invasion of my privacy, then I have none to begin with.

Bill Sikes;1184181 wrote: If you're talking about crime detection, then DNA evidence is certainly not always an accurate pointer to guilt - however, such is the weight attached to it, that it is perhaps often seen as such.

However, I feel that we're diverging from the original point of this thread, so I will not go further in it. Feel free to start another if you wish.


Sorry, Bill. I thought this thread was about DNA databases and personal privacy.

OpenMind;1184059 wrote: Please excuse my ignorance but, could somebody tell me exactly how a DNA database, that includes a sample of my own, would take away my privacy.


It isn't the database but the accuracy that is so bothering. Two minutes on the net and............



A third of driving licences incorrect: Wrong DVLA data 'wasting police time' - UK, News - The Independent



Blundering DVLA sent the details of 1,200 drivers to wrong addresses | Mail Online

ID in the News» Blog Archive » DVLA loses licenses



MPI Report Shows Database Errors Plague Immigration Enforcement



Innocents fear DNA database errors - Telegraph

As we all know government departments are always willing to admit errors and fix then with speed and accuracy. And ministers are always willing to take responsibility for those mistakes and repair the damage done. Errors in databases are the norm not some 1 in a million chance, it is getting the mistakes found and fixed that is the problem. Imagine the damage just one person on the take could do with access to the ID database, how much for a clean but fake ID card. Even with proof the DVLA will not admit that there are errors on its data........:-5:-5

FUBAR;1184333 wrote: It isn't the database but the accuracy that is so bothering. Two minutes on the net and............





A third of driving licences incorrect: Wrong DVLA data 'wasting police time' - UK, News - The Independent





Blundering DVLA sent the details of 1,200 drivers to wrong addresses | Mail Online



ID in the News» Blog Archive » DVLA loses licenses





MPI Report Shows Database Errors Plague Immigration Enforcement





Innocents fear DNA database errors - Telegraph



As we all know government departments are always willing to admit errors and fix then with speed and accuracy. And ministers are always willing to take responsibility for those mistakes and repair the damage done. Errors in databases are the norm not some 1 in a million chance, it is getting the mistakes found and fixed that is the problem. Imagine the damage just one person on the take could do with access to the ID database, how much for a clean but fake ID card. Even with proof the DVLA will not admit that there are errors on its data........:-5:-5


Now that does present a problem. Administrative errors. No answer to that other than ensuring that this is recognised in practice whenever the database is being applied.

Blast from the past what if these guys had been suggesting it?:sneaky:

YouTube - Spitting Image 1987 Election Special. Tomorrow belongs to me

A salutary reminder. I managed to watch it without a seizure, I'm not sure I could do it twice though.

spot;1183884 wrote: Perhaps it depends on the level of government and who subsequently has access to the information, don't you think.

What does "Coercion of Privacy Rights" mean? That's why I came into the thread.

Someone has "Privacy Rights"? Who? On what basis does he have them?

And he's coerced into giving them up? How is it a right if he can abdicate it? People can't abdicate rights, surely they can only abdicate privileges.


Has access to the information............ If it is out there, it is possible for it to be retrieved. Who will retrieve it? That is the question to ask. Also, for what purpose would they want it?

As I looked at this, I saw that 'the powers that be' were offering an exchange of freedom for DNA. For most people, there is no choice but to give up their DNA to maintain their freedom. To me, it seems that this offer shows that just asking for it would not obtain it and so they need to make it worse for the person to say no than to comply. I feel this takes away their freedom to decide. Thus it is coercion. They could just as easily said they could be free if they paid a fine, which would be more in keeping with the current laws, but they did not do this. They want the DNA and the question is: For what purpose are they collecting the DNA?

Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA.

To answer this, let me give you an example: You have the right to swing your arm. I have the right not to be hit by you swinging your arm. If I choose to get into a boxing ring with you to box, I give up my right not to be hit by your swinging arm. It is not a privledge not to be hit by your swinging arm, so it is not a privledge that I can give up.

spot;1183927 wrote: Neither do I buy into it. It's purely a matter of utility. I don't stop there, I didn't say I stopped anywhere, I'm all for total transparency of every act of every citizen every second, day and night, birth to death. By all means describe it as "basic human rights" though it obviously isn't, you only need to consider the current state of surveillance to realize that it's a matter of acceptance rather than principle.

I'm not looking for "potentialy reduced crime level", I'm looking for the immediate attribution of every unlawful act to its perpetrator at the moment the crime's committed. For one thing I think it'll reduce the number of events society deems criminal, for another it might finally get light shed on what's considered a sensible reaction.

I'd also guarantee that at least the same degree of surveillance applies to the enforcers and legislators as it does to the rest of us, they need just as much oversight.


I think you are a dreamer. What you suggest is just a plot to use in a sci-fi fiction story.

OpenMind;1184179 wrote: I'm thanking you because you answered my question. That's all.

My problem, you see, is why people generally fear the existence of a DNA database. I would only fear it if it became possible to replicate a person's DNA.If I am going about my normal non-criminal life doing what I do, I leave a 'trail' by which anyone with the know how can trace me. My DNA on a database can't do that unless I spit on everything I pass or leave a trail of blood.


Currently in the US they are planning a national healtcare system. The fear is that government, not doctors, will control the care a person receives. Consider this: If the government has a DNA database which they can access as to markers on a person's health, would they not use it to say they will not "waste resources" on someone who will likely die early anyway from something else? Or, who will "waste resources" by their numerous illness? Also, what if they decide they need to breed "special" people to obtain maximum IQ, or physical abilities? We've seen this happen in Germany once before. Do you really think that once this information is collected, it will not be used by corrupt people?

They say that they will be able to solve crimes with a DNA database. BUT, is this really the reason for this?????????????

Kindle;1184701 wrote: Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA.


Oh come on. The millions in your jails are citizens too. You're trying to tell me no court can order law enforcement to test DNA samples against a suspect's wishes?

If you can clean up the sentence until it's accurate I'd be interested in seeing it. If you know which law I'd like to try reading it, though US legislation seems deliberately unreadable every time I've gone near it for clarification.

Kindle;1184707 wrote: I think you are a dreamer. What you suggest is just a plot to use in a sci-fi fiction story.


Fifty years ago you'd have said exactly that if anyone had described DNA matching to you. Time will tell which of us is right. It's usually me.

spot;1184713 wrote: Oh come on. The millions in your jails are citizens too. You're trying to tell me no court can order law enforcement to test DNA samples against a suspect's wishes?

If you can clean up the sentence until it's accurate I'd be interested in seeing it. If you know which law I'd like to try reading it, though US legislation seems deliberately unreadable every time I've gone near it for clarification.


No, Spot. I am not telling you that. Under due process of law law-enforcement can petition the Court to obtain a person's DNA. This is greatly different from campaigning to obtaining DNA from everyone who is locked up for any type of crime.

[QUOTE=spot;1184714]Fifty years ago you'd have said exactly that if anyone had described DNA matching to you. Time will tell which of us is right. It's usually me.[/QUOTE]

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Kindle;1184719 wrote: No, Spot. I am not telling you that. Under due process of law law-enforcement can petition the Court to obtain a person's DNA. This is greatly different from campaigning to obtaining DNA from everyone who is locked up for any type of crime.


It's exactly what you said, that's all. "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA." - changing it to something different in response has nothing to do with "No, Spot. I am not telling you that."

spot;1184722 wrote: It's exactly what you said, that's all. "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA." - changing it to something different in response has nothing to do with "No, Spot. I am not telling you that."


Read again what I responded to.

Originally Posted by spot

Oh come on. The millions in your jails are citizens too. You're trying to tell me no court can order law enforcement to test DNA samples against a suspect's wishes?

If you can clean up the sentence until it's accurate I'd be interested in seeing it. If you know which law I'd like to try reading it, though US legislation seems deliberately unreadable every time I've gone near it for clarification.

Kindle;1184728 wrote: Read again what I responded to.


YouTube - Who's Sorry Now-Connie Francis

Kindle;1184728 wrote: Read again what I responded to.Kindle, if you'd just learn to quote conventionally instead of playing with colours you might stand more chance of getting your thoughts in order. Mostly I can't see colours, I only can this week because I've just installed this computer. Given your rainbow effects I can clearly remember why I turn colours off normally.

You wrote "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA."

Your law enforcement tests millions of DNA samples against suspects routinely every year. All of those suspects are citizens. Many, not that I need make the point, are innocent of the crime under investigation and never even tried much less acquitted. "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA" is blatantly false, it's why I asked you to clarify what you'd actually meant to write. I still have absolutely no idea what that might have been.

Kindle;1184712 wrote: Currently in the US they are planning a national healtcare system. The fear is that government, not doctors, will control the care a person receives. Consider this: If the government has a DNA database which they can access as to markers on a person's health, would they not use it to say they will not "waste resources" on someone who will likely die early anyway from something else? Or, who will "waste resources" by their numerous illness? Also, what if they decide they need to breed "special" people to obtain maximum IQ, or physical abilities? We've seen this happen in Germany once before. Do you really think that once this information is collected, it will not be used by corrupt people?

They say that they will be able to solve crimes with a DNA database. BUT, is this really the reason for this?????????????


This really is the plot of a bad sci-fi novel. A DNA sample is just that, sufficient of a sample to see what percentage of the fragments match. To do what you're suggesting would require a complete genome analysis which the amount of DNA in a sample will not allow.

spot;1184891 wrote: Kindle, if you'd just learn to quote conventionally instead of playing with colours you might stand more chance of getting your thoughts in order. Mostly I can't see colours, I only can this week because I've just installed this computer. Given your rainbow effects I can clearly remember why I turn colours off normally.



You wrote "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA."



Your law enforcement tests millions of DNA samples against suspects routinely every year. All of those suspects are citizens. Many, not that I need make the point, are innocent of the crime under investigation and never even tried much less acquitted. "Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA" is blatantly false, it's why I asked you to clarify what you'd actually meant to write. I still have absolutely no idea what that might have been.


Here is a table of the laws state by state. There is legislation in some states for more power involving the taking of DNA samples.



NCSLnet: 50 State Laws on DNA Data Banks

YZGI;1184909 wrote: Here is a table of the laws state by state. There is legislation in some states for more power involving the taking of DNA samples.



NCSLnet: 50 State Laws on DNA Data Banks


So, to take just the first sentence, "All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA sample"?

And convicted sex offenders are citizens?

"Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA"?

"No, Spot. I am not telling you that"?

I find conversations like this something of a waste of time to be honest.

Bryn Mawr;1184901 wrote: This really is the plot of a bad sci-fi novel. A DNA sample is just that, sufficient of a sample to see what percentage of the fragments match. To do what you're suggesting would require a complete genome analysis which the amount of DNA in a sample will not allow.


That's very good to know. I'll have to read more about this. Thanks.

YZGI;1184909 wrote: Here is a table of the laws state by state. There is legislation in some states for more power involving the taking of DNA samples.



NCSLnet: 50 State Laws on DNA Data Banks


Good stuff to know. Thanks

Spot, Bryn Mawr, YZGI:

Apparently there is a lot more to know about DNA than most of us are aware of.

Genetic Privacy

spot;1184915 wrote: So, to take just the first sentence, "All 50 states require that convicted sex offenders provide a DNA sample"?

And convicted sex offenders are citizens?

"Under the law, the citizens of the US have the right to privacy. Currently that includes our DNA"?

"No, Spot. I am not telling you that"?

I find conversations like this something of a waste of time to be honest.


Well, sweet man, it wasn't a waste of time for me..................... I had some things clarified. I'm better informed than I previously was and if I annoyed you in the process.................... well, some would consider that a bonus. :sneaky:

Kindle;1184930 wrote: Well, sweet man, it wasn't a waste of time for me..................... I had some things clarified. I'm better informed than I previously was and if I annoyed you in the process.................... well, some would consider that a bonus. :sneaky:


Some people wouldn't recognize information not even if they were trepanned and had a two inch TV tuned to the Discovery Channel bolted up against their brain as a direct feed. It's no coincidence that Kindle Doom-Fit Bozo anagrams to Kind Of Lobotomized either.

To me, it all appears to come down to how and for what purpose a DNA database is used. There are clear benefits from the existence of a database and it would, in my opnion, be foolish not to create one.

Laws can be applied to control the use of the database and ensure that our 'privacies' are not abused. This, by the nature of our political systems, is in the hands of those we have elected to represent us. We can petition them however and tell them what we want.

I notice that there is an assumption that our governments are corrupt and intend to use the database for nefarious reasons. This amuses me considering that we elected them in the first place.

spot;1184959 wrote: Some people wouldn't recognize information not even if they were trepanned and had a two inch TV tuned to the Discovery Channel bolted up against their brain as a direct feed. It's no coincidence that Kindle Doom-Fit Bozo anagrams to Kind Of Lobotomized either.


After an hour and 19 minutes you come up with this?

Pathetic.

OpenMind;1184996 wrote:

I notice that there is an assumption that our governments are corrupt and intend to use the database for nefarious reasons. This amuses me considering that we elected them in the first place.


OM I'm not sure its corruption that people are neccessarily frightened of but incompetance. We see a great amount of that. We elect our governments to do a lot of things, running the economy, keeping us safe in our beds, making sure we get value for our pound of flesh they take in taxes etc, etc. I dont see a lot of competance there with this government. Since when have governments done things purely for the benefit of the electorate. Certainly not this one. Much of what our politicians do is motivated by self interest and most of its business is carried out with a fair degree of incompetence.

I'm not sure there is much faith in, at least, this government we have now

Kindle;1185022 wrote: After an hour and 19 minutes you come up with this?

Pathetic.


Ah well. At least I tried, eh.