Can't believe I agree with the ACLU on this:

[DeepIron]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html

The ACLU's Steinhardt doesn't believe it will stop there.
"This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals," he said. "Now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody."

I hate the premise that I will feel safer because of this. Heck, the US can't even stop uneducated illegals from entering the country...

[SUBMAN1]

I rarely agree with them too - but I'm against this as well. THough the FBI already has my prints (A requirement for my CPP permit), this is BS.

-S

[mrbeast]

Think I agree with the comments posted here already.

In the UK at least one high ranking police officer said that there should be national database of everyone's DNA! Think such ideas are crazy. Theres already trouble over the police keeping DNA samples from people who have been stopped but were not charged or were found not guilty in court.

I think some law enforcement organisations in the US and the UK lose sight of the whole reason for their existance i.e. the protection of the individual, not the pursuit of the guilty at any and all costs.

[DeepIron]

THough the FBI already has my prints (A requirement for my CPP permit), this is BS. Yeah, mine are on record for my Hazman CDL endorsement... but as you say, the rest is BS...

I think some law enforcement organisations in the US and the UK lose sight of the whole reason for their existance i.e. the protection of the individual, not the pursuit of the guilty at any and all costs.
Well spoken Sir! :up:

[Tchocky]

DHS has plenty of my prints on file. Printed over 20 times now, index and full spread. Bleh.

[August]

I don't necessarily disagree with you fellows in principle but how about giving us some scenarios where these databases could actually hurt the law abiding?

Please don't include mistaken identity cases as that can happen just as easily without the database as with...

[Yahoshua]

Do we really need to elaborate on the theft of thousands of identities of U.S. serviceman (the stolen laptop), or that Social Security had a bit of an "information leak" and subsequently was handing out sensitive data to questionable entitites?

Thew government's handling of the personal information of the public has been horrendously inept and proved that such information is dangerous if left in their hands.

[Ishmael]

You guys need to correlate this with the A.T. &T. whistleblower who broke the story about the "special rooms" the NSA has in all A.T.&T. central offices in major cities where ALL fiberoptic data traffic is tapped and routed. Also the story of the Fiberoptic cable cuts in the Mideast and Asia causing all That traffic to be routed through the US and UK and those special rooms as well.

[August]

Do we really need to elaborate on the theft of thousands of identities of U.S. serviceman (the stolen laptop), or that Social Security had a bit of an "information leak" and subsequently was handing out sensitive data to questionable entitites?

Thew government's handling of the personal information of the public has been horrendously inept and proved that such information is dangerous if left in their hands.

Yeesh I was just asking. :roll: Does the question really deserve the attitude or should we all just take your word for it?

[SUBMAN1]

Do we really need to elaborate on the theft of thousands of identities of U.S. serviceman (the stolen laptop), or that Social Security had a bit of an "information leak" and subsequently was handing out sensitive data to questionable entitites?

Thew government's handling of the personal information of the public has been horrendously inept and proved that such information is dangerous if left in their hands.
Yeesh I was just asking. :roll: Does the question really deserve the attitude or should we all just take your word for it?It kind of does deserve an attitude. Besides, I don't like Big Brother peering over my shoulder 24/7. That is just weird.

-S

[August]

It kind of does deserve an attitude. Besides, I don't like Big Brother peering over my shoulder 24/7. That is just weird.

-S

No it doesn't. Nothing you or Yahoshua have said so far overrides security or identity theft issues and that's why I asked my original question. Give me a GOOD reason to oppose this besides you just don't like the idea or you don't trust the gov'ment. Show me how the government keeping that information will cause you actual harm or how it will be misused.

If we are to argue against it we're gonna have to have a better reason than Subman1 opposes the idea.

[SUBMAN1]

No it doesn't. Nothing you or Yahoshua have said so far overrides security or identity theft issues and that's why I asked my original question. Give me a GOOD reason to oppose this besides you just don't like the idea or you don't trust the gov'ment. Show me how the government keeping that information will cause you actual harm or how it will be misused.

If we are to argue against it we're gonna have to have a better reason than Subman1 opposes the idea.Without getting into a lengthy debate, let me quote one of your forefathers:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
-S

PS. "It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated."

[SUBMAN1]

I'd like to see this happen:

If the FBI really wants to collect fingerprints, retinal scans and tatoo maps on criminals and people in sensitive jobs, perhaps it ought to start with everyone in the US Congress, all the corporate lobbyists in Washington DC, all Federal and state judges and prosecutors, and everyone working for the FBI and all other Federal government agencies, as well as all the personnel in state and local law enforcement agencies. Only then should the FBI start taking citizens' biometrics.

[August]

Without getting into a lengthy debate, let me quote one of your forefathers:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
-S

PS. "It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated."

So from that Franklin quote you must also oppose having a military or police force right? I mean how dare they risk your essential liberty by providing temporary security from terrorists, criminals, fascists and axis hordes. That's the problem with general quotes like that. They are way too vague to be directly applied to specific situations and therefore easily countered.

Again, tell me what specific problems I will have if the Feds have my fingerprints and retina map on file. If you want to persuade, not just me, but the rest of your fellow citizens, that this is something we should oppose then provide concrete and realistic examples to illustrate why this is such a bad thing. If you just stick to non specific quotes from long dead sages and undefined threats you will loose the argument, which if what you say is true that is a bad thing for us all.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I rarely agree with them too - but I'm against this as well. THough the FBI already has my prints (A requirement for my CPP permit), this is BS.

-S


Got mine too. From being a tourist :p

[Zayphod]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html

The ACLU's Steinhardt doesn't believe it will stop there.
"This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals," he said. "Now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody."

I hate the premise that I will feel safer because of this. Heck, the US can't even stop uneducated illegals from entering the country...

What??? Against it? Why, you liberal fools!
Don't you know that BIG GOVERNMENT knows what's best for you?

How dare you question this proposal!!!

<(aiming directly at the mike)> Why, I fully endorse this idea, and in fact, Bush, and his administration, should be kept on for 8 more years to ensure that this project is completed. Screw privacy! That'll keep us safe from terrorists.

Anyone who doesn't see 1984 fizzing up like a coke bottle with a mento in it isn't paying attention. :o

[Sailor Steve]

So from that Franklin quote you must also oppose having a military or police force right? I mean how dare they risk your essential liberty by providing temporary security from terrorists, criminals, fascists and axis hordes. That's the problem with general quotes like that. They are way too vague to be directly applied to specific situations and therefore easily countered.
Actually, most of the Founders were against having a military. Over the years they've been proven wrong, and ours is subject to civilian oversight. Not really making a point, just mentioning it.

Again, tell me what specific problems I will have if the Feds have my fingerprints and retina map on file. If you want to persuade, not just me, but the rest of your fellow citizens, that this is something we should oppose then provide concrete and realistic examples to illustrate why this is such a bad thing. If you just stick to non specific quotes from long dead sages and undefined threats you will loose the argument, which if what you say is true that is a bad thing for us all.
And now for something completely different: as much as I'm opposed to any kind of government intrusion, I tend to agree with you on this. So far I've seen no argument made concerning palm-prints and retina-scans that couldn't be applied to fingerprints as well. My opinion isn't completely formed, but I fail to see how this could be applied to references to 1984 or even privacy invasions.

[August]

And now for something completely different: as much as I'm opposed to any kind of government intrusion, I tend to agree with you on this. So far I've seen no argument made concerning palm-prints and retina-scans that couldn't be applied to fingerprints as well. My opinion isn't completely formed, but I fail to see how this could be applied to references to 1984 or even privacy invasions.

That's my problem in a nutshell Steve. I agree in spirit but it's difficult to argue against something when I can't point out the downside except in the most general terms.