I'm betting that all the people against this are unanimously in favor of proving ID in order to vote.
Posted on 01/22/2008 12:28:56 PM PST by BGHater
I’m sure that the collection of DNA from criminals in the UK was a “reasonable” measure, but then they expanded it from convicted criminals, to anybody who has ever been arrested, even if everything is dropped or you were erroneously arrested, too bad, they’ve got your DNA now and will NOT erase it. Do you really think these people will stop at an ID card??? I have a bridge for sale if your answer is yes.
Think that’s hyperbole? Driver’s licenses already are used for such purposes.
This part is just silly and is indeed hyperbole. Your right to drive is revoked, not your identification. In every state I'm aware of, if they take your driver's license you can get a state ID card that is equally valid as ID for something like $10.
Not that I've had my DL taken away in all that many states. :)
What is the ethical difference between fingerprints and a DNA sample?
Another nonsense article.
>> Do you really think these people will stop at an ID card??? I have a bridge for sale if your answer is yes.
No need to condescend, slick.
>> I’m sure that the collection of DNA from criminals in the UK was a “reasonable” measure, but then they expanded it from convicted criminals, to anybody who has ever been arrested, even if everything is dropped or you were erroneously arrested, too bad, they’ve got your DNA now and will NOT erase it.
I will not seek to scuttle reasonable, and fully Constitutional, security measures because of a hypothetical, entirely fabricated, unreasonable measure that hasn’t even been suggested.
Lets take the good ones, and torpedo the bad ones — torpedoing all security measures, reasonable or otherwise, because of a hypothetical is simply ridicuous.
H
When I was a kid, you’d often hear something like:
“May I sit here?”
“Sure, it’s a free country.”
I haven’t heard anyone say “it’s a free country” in a LONG time.
Why do you suppose that is?
I'm betting that all the people against this are unanimously in favor of proving ID in order to vote.
ping
>> When I was a kid, you’d often hear something like: “May I sit here?” “Sure, it’s a free country.”
>> I haven’t heard anyone say “it’s a free country” in a LONG time. Why do you suppose that is?
For the same reason people don’t say “Radical!” or “Bodacious” very much. Because that was a cute catch-phrase several decades ago.
Absurd anecdotes don’t particularly help your case. I wouldn’t extrapolate your experience with people not saying “its a free country” as evidence that the nation is less free ... its merely evidence that common vernacular has changed.
You can sit anywhere you want.
H
Probably so.
H
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201648_pf.html
Such concerns are amplified by fears that, in time, authorities will try to obtain information from stored DNA beyond the unique personal identifiers.
"Genetic material is a very powerful identifier, but it also happens to carry a heck of a lot of information about you," said Jim Harper, director of information policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington concerned about DNA database trends.
Law enforcement officials say they have no interest in reading people's genetic secrets. The U.S. profiling system focuses on just 13 small regions of the DNA molecule -- regions that do not code for any known biological or behavioral traits but vary enough to give everyone who is not an identical twin a unique 52-digit number.
"It's like a Social Security number, but not assigned by the government," said Michael Smith, a University of Wisconsin law professor who favors a national database of every American's genetic ID with certain restrictions.
Still, the blood, semen or cheek-swab specimen that yields that DNA, and which authorities almost always save, contains additional genetic information that is sensitive, including disease susceptibilities that could affect employment and health insurance prospects and, in some cases, surprises about who a child's father is.
"We don't know all the potential uses of DNA, but once the state has your sample and there are not limits on how it can be used, then the potential civil liberty violations are as vast as the uses themselves," said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.
She and others want samples destroyed once the identifying profile has been extracted, but the FBI favors preserving them.
Our only difference would be what that "ID" consists of. Biometric data, and RFID chips are troubling to me.
The author omitted that Real ID will most likely be required for employment. Title 3 of the last immigration bill, which failed to pass, links Real ID with E Verify such that, if the bill had passed, Real ID would have been required for employment beginning in 2013.
And it is not just Real ID that is in play, it is the merging of federal databases. E-Verify has problems that can be solved only by merging the SS and DHS databases, which will ultimately lead to a single database. Real ID linked to E-Verify and E-Verify linked to the merged database.
Obviously there are problems and certain states as well as a growing number of Senators are opposing. This is why Chertoff made his recent pronouncements on changes. Those born before 1964 will not have to have Real ID. Bar Codes and not RFID, tho I'm certain that RFID will eventually be used.
Simply not true. Regular driver's licenses are perfectly verifiable. All that needs to be done is to require a certified photocopy of a birth certificate in order to obtain one. Repeat as necessary.
There is ZERO need to have an ID that is linkable to a centralized database. "REAL ID" is "your papers please" Nazi Germany all over again, only on steroids.
Your regular driver's license isn't linked by computer to a central database in DC. THAT is the danger. The card itself is a non-problem. The author may over-dramatize somewhat, but she's right.
That's because it's a STATE ID, and not linked to a central computer and database in Washington, DC. And it is precisely that abiltity to "track you" that they are adding, and which is the real danger.
There were several threads on Chertoff’s anouncement a week ago Friday, and many articles in the media.
More and more, I think you are right. Such measures in the hands of Bush are one thing, but in the hands of a Hillary Clinton, something quite different. Maybe our government would do well to abandon such intrusions on law abiding people and spend some time and effort rounding up and deporting those non citizens who are likely to pose a threat to our security.
>> Your regular driver’s license isn’t linked by computer to a central database in DC.
Its currently linked to a more local or statewide database. What do you think the cop is calling up when he types the DL# into that little computer?
I see no difference. I’m not upset if Texas does it ... so why be upset if its integrated federally?
H
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.