Are you Pro or Contra Registering All People's Biometrics to Fight Crime/Terrorism Better?

No, because some people actually think about the ramifications and consequences of what their "bright idea" is before suggesting it.

I thought saying Contra instead of Con was a weird misplaced video game reference until I went to an online dictionary to check and see if I was an idiot. It turns out that I am.

I don't want the government to track my stats unless they're going to put up leaderboards, too

THIS IS AN AWESOME IDEA.

Once we have all of this information on file we could use data from convicted criminals to create biometric profiles which could be used to identify potential suspects/future criminals and round them up before any harm could be done. Someone get Nancy Grace on this, immediately.

For it. Probably make things a little faster when they see most of us are unlikely to blow up a plane due to where we have been and what we have done.

People are so hung up on freedom, but guess what, flying is not a freedom. Walk if you want to. Drive even. Even then you have to follow the rules of the road. It is this society of entitlement where somehow rights we have extend to every single thing we do. It comes down to this. You don't own the airport. You don't own the plane. You want to play by your own rules? Go buy your own.

Where's Jesse Ventura when you need him?

How would you feel if the Government could monitor everything you're doing on your computer whenever they want?

It's how pro and contra are commonly used in German, the original saxon language, and according to that dictionary entry I found, it should be the same in English. Maybe not commonly, but the word means exactly the same.

Isn't that already a thing in America in the post 9/11 world? I'm pretty sure it is. The whole wire-tapping bill thing?

Are you suggesting that people aren't already outraged by The Patriot Act?

You sound insane.

Gee I wonder why Contra got so many votes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnBYxh1N1E8

Of course people are upset about such surveillance. Then again, most of us semi-literate internet users are pretty much naked online, privacy-wise. Many even chose to divulge tons and tons of personal information online willingly. Generation Facebook and such.

However, a simple database of personal biometric data is really rather tame in comparison. It's not active surveillance, it's just static data. What harm does having your fingerprint or DNA strain filed away do to anyone? It's just not comparable really. A biometric database is about as dangerous as being listed in a phonebook.

If you are referring to me, I find the irrational fear of an inherently harmless collection of personal biometric data by government institutions for the sake of peacekeeping rather insane.

Care to explain how anonymity equates to freedom? How anonymity is equal to the presumption of innocence, and how the loss of anonymity becomes an assumption of guilt? Irrational and groundless fear skewes a simple database into a tool of oppression, when it's merely a means of identification. If your person isn't of interest in a criminal investigation, how does a biometric database hurt your freedoms exactly?

Irrational fear rather conforms with insanity, much more so than the strife for a more efficient justice system.

What buttons you press on a voting machine. With what's come out now about the IRS targeting members of specific political parties, it would make that kind of abuse easier for whoever's in office.

For I have nothing to hide and If we have more peace then sure. I do not give up any freedom at all. Except the freedom of doing crimes.

Ok I am not seppli but what ever XD

Cameras in Own private rooms. No. Cameras in public places and the city itself sure.

as for GPS: Sure why not.

as for breathalizers: Sure why not or are you driving drunk?

Drug test: Sure why not if it does not take a lot of time and you do not have to go to a facility and it can be done instant.

As for the Hitler Thing: This will never happen again. In our westernized world. So don't try to come up with that. Can it happen in China or countries like North Korea in some instances. Yes but not in America, Europe or countries like Australia.

Edit: I wish gifs worked properly just viewing them.

• There's a differnce between surveillance/invasion of privacy, and a collection of biometric data.
• Eugenics gets a bad rep. Breeding responsibly isn't the worst thing in the world. Sure - if you believe it's politically feasible to regulate breeding, then that possibility is a scary thing. I however believe it's politically impossible, and hence an irrational fear.
• Large groups of people do horrendous things to one another. Horrible things are happening right now all over the world. However, these atrocities are not commited with information. They are commited with force. Information alone harms no one, but it sure can help save lives.

I can give many, many reasons why such a thing could happen again and examples of how what is happening today could go down that path. The new NDAA that Obama signed allows the federal government to snatch any U.S. citizen that they suspect of terrorism off the street without charges or trial and hold them in a secret location indefinitely. Do you get it? This has already gone into law. And if you look at how wide the new definitions of "terrorist" is, almost anyone could, in one way or another, be labeled as such. Live in your fantasy world while it lasts because reality will sadly hit you and all of us soon enough.

That force uses information as a tool. That should be quite obvious.

So what? IT is like anyone could abuse that and suddenly ore and more people will vanish. This can not be done in your time and age anymore. Before any of this escalates you will have millions of people talking about it around the world and protesting even before something really cruel could happen. Today everyone can tweet everyone can post photos and videos and everyone will see this stuff in an instant. This combined with modern news technologies will always prevent such a abuse these days.

And while I would live in my fantasy world you would live in your world thinking everything to protect our peace will be abused by evil evil men that suddenly ill cause a AD situation again.... Luckily I am not the one living in a dream world. You do not have less freedom because of this.

Stuff that would danger your freedom would be censoring of the internet. Or that you can not leave your country anymore such stuff. Not if your city now has cameras in the whole town or that your car now suddenly can detect if you are parking on the wrong spot and gives you a ticket.

I would be against. The amount that would cost could be put to far better use. That would be a ridiculous amount of money.

So you believe if *The Forces That Be* were hellbent on getting you good, the lack of a biometrics database would prevent them from applying force?

That's textbook irrational fear. My point is pretty simple to understand, in so far that anything that's politically impossible only can come to pass in circumstances similar to a full-blown civil war. At that point, what do you care what harm it does. You pick a side and fight.

At no point beforehand is there any real risk of catastrophic abuse.

I'm not sure I follow you full blown civil war argument. If a government is clamped down on a populace then such information makes such a thing much easier and makes resistance harder. Having such information would allow a corrupt entity, whether sanctioned by the government or a group within the government, to abuse that information. Do you know how easy it is to replicate DNA? And then perhaps plant such DNA on a crime scene? Corrupt governments/individuals always prefer to make their actions seem legit under law.

Why let things get to the point of Civil War when they can just be prevented? Once again, aside form the abuses that could happen, I just don't want the government to have my biometric information, just like I don't want cameras on every street corner and in my home? Why? I don't need a goddamn reason. Because I want to be left the fuck alone.

Totally against it.

First off, how does this prevent crime? All this would do is make it easier to identify suspects. There would be no crime prevented by having the DNA on file so the suicide bomber can be identified from some scrap of skin.

You have more to fear from your own government then any foreign terrorist group. There are far more wrongful deaths at the hands of police officers then all the deaths in the USA from terrorists.

What if your genetic data becomes leaked? What if you have genes making you prone to certain types of cancer and your insurance company gets that data. Do you now lose your plan or have to pay a higher premium?

Your internet usage is monitored. You think Facebook or Google can data mine you? What if the NSA decides to create profiles for everyone and those with flags are closely monitored? You contribute to a political blog, make bomb jokes in text messages, or any of thousands of potential metrics that can be used and you are now on a watch list. The IRS decides to audit you to see if you are hiding funds or wiretap your cell phone to know what you are saying.

The simple fact is, I would rather have more criminals free then lose my privacy.

Play Metal Gear Solid 4 for a direct example of why this would be an awful idea. NO BUENO I SAY!

How can it prevent crime? If you get caught much much easier people will think more about it. Also what if what if? These are the worst possible results. What if if this does not happen? Also you are already on a such a watch there are tons of computer searching conversations through phones and the internet about some special words. Did it so far danger your freedom? Or the freedom of speech? No it did not.

@harabec said:

• It prevents crime by more efficiently getting the criminal element behind bars.
• You sue the pants off whoever leaks your data. Or you just don't care, because you've got socialized health care. While not improbable, it's still rather irrational. Insurance companies are going to fuck you over anyways, unless they're bound by law.
• Google quite certainly has a quite comprehensive online profile on all of us. So what? If you aren't a person of interest, nobody cares. Are you a person of interest?
• How's a database filing of your biometric data akin to a loss of privacy?
• You said: "The simple fact is, I would rather have more criminals free then lose my privacy." - that sounds irrational to me.

@mcghee:

At the point when your government plants DNA at a crimescene to frame you, you are completely detached from reality and have entered a world of fiction. If your country falls apart, and one faction starts to fuck with the others, there will be no such finesse. It will be a show of force, and that's that.

Fiction? History has already shown that such a thing can happen. Notice I said that government or those within government could do such a thing. Cops have been caught planting drugs and guns on people.

This comes down to the fact that I value privacy, independence, and freedom more than you do, and as I have already said, those things are fundamentally dangerous. There are many "rational" things that could be done by government "for the greater good" that could also be quite tyrannical.

@strife777:

In the most extreme case, the government or a part of the government using your genetic data to target you, Hitler's job would have been even 'easier' if he'd had known the exact genetic makeup of everyone in the Reich. Sure this seems unlikely in most 'first world' nations which would have the technology and money to carry out such a campaign, but personally I'd rather not give them the chance.

23andme.com is a web site that offers genetic sequencing for $99. It also offers to show you interesting facts about your genetic history, health and other fun info. I would argue that having this known to you, and your physicians, is as important as a medical history file.

Everyone, whether they like it or not, are already under close watch by your own government (unless you live in Detroit). Having medical information on a government mainframe might be useful for general health practices. Anyway, why should you worry if you don't plan on being a criminal.

Way to misjudge a person. I am vehemently against overregulation. I hate prohibition of any kind. I have a strong distaste for definition by precedent. Ideally - if it was up to me, we'd have but a handful of broadly defined values, living our lives in perpetual conflict over the meaning and daily application of them. True peace through perpetual war. Not that it matters really...

I just don't see how a biometrics database would be inherently detrimental to the values of a democratic society. All the downsides mentioned in this thread are hypothetical in nature, and draw at best from the darkest hours of our history, whilst the benefits are much more tangible and relevant.

If your darkest fears in regards to a biometrics database would come to pass, you'd have much worse problems to deal with anyways. So why even bring it up...

100% Agree

I dunno, I think with Facebook and shit it's already easy enough for the government to track you down. Plus there's a lot of criminals who I consider my friends and naturally I'd prefer not to see them go to jail.

I have yet to see a relevant and rational correlation between anonymity and freedom.

Against, unbelievably against. The justice system doesn't work in the vain of guilty until proven innocent, and it never should despite the fact that we continue to go further and further down that path. People have the right to privacy and that shouldn't be intruded upon for a very very small minority of people that do harm. The overwhelming majority of people are good people. You do not combat nefarious acts by punishing them, because ultimately they're the only ones that will be punished. Criminals don't give a flying fuck, because if they did they wouldn't be goddamn criminals.

The people that are for shit like this need a reality check. Do you, for one second, trust the fucking government completely and totally? Are they absolutely infallible and incorruptible? Answer no to any or all of those and there's your reason why you don't do shit like this. It worries me that people here are so willing to give up their rights and liberties for a sense of security that won't even change anything or make anything any more secure.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

That quote right there sums everything up perfectly. The lesser of two evils, and that's what this is compared to crime and terrorism, almost always leads to more evil.

@aiurflux:

Please explain to me the liberty you'd lose by having your biometric data filed in a national or even international database? I genuinely don't see the correlation between freedom and anonymity.

up up down down left right left right b a start

The blood test, cheek swab, whatever I HAVE to do is a violation of privacy at it's very core. How you don't see that is beyond me. To undergo a procedure like that based on zero due process, zero warrant, and zero grounds is flat out wrong. Period. I should not be poked and prodded for a promise of security when there is zero evidence to support that doing such a thing would make anything any more secure.

@seppli: It all comes down to whether reasonable privacy is a civil right.

If it isn't, the TSA should expand their invasion of privacy from private sector air travel to vehicular travel as well. Gas stations should include L-3 ProVision scanners.

If it isn't, unwarranted phone tapping is not an unnecessary evil, but a necessary good. After all, phones are a primary method of communication for criminals, and those who aren't criminals have nothing to hide.

If it isn't, warrants should not longer be required for police officers to legally inspect private property. Again, you've nothing to hide so why would you care?

Trying to convince anyone that privacy is important is like trying to convince a Neo Nazi that racism is evil. There's no argument that can be presented; they just have to experience the effects for their self.

Why do you distrust your Government so much? I do not trust them but I think they are not crazy so so yeah I rather want be able to walk around in the night without having the fear of getting robbed, killed or raped if all it takes are stuff like this.

@seppli: You really don't consider it a matter of freedom to choose who you do or do not trust with your personally identifiable information?

But hey it's the government so it's totally safe. When's the last time they ever lost anyone's information? Oh right

5 days ago

7 days ago

8 days ago

...

Against, give a inch and they take a mile, fuck the government.

Because governments, throughout human history, have lied, stolen, and killed the people that they're supposed to represent. If you want me to get into the American government I can easily bring up things like Watergate, or Bush lying about Iraq, or Iran Contra. Things that have happened within the last 100 years that aren't crackpot conspiracy theories that nutjobs think up.

You honestly expect me, or anybody else, to trust something like that? For fucks sake a poll came out awhile ago that showed that the American public favored cockroaches to their own fucking Congress.

And here's a newsflash, if you can't walk around at night without an irrational fear of getting robbed, killed, or raped then maybe you need psychiatric help or should move out of the neighborhood that you're in. All you're getting is the PROMISE of security. You can still get robbed, killed, or raped even if genetic information is on file. Show me a 25 year study with statistical data that proves that something like this would make things safer and I'll shut up. But no study exists, so it's all empty promises that are but wind. They mean nothing.

@darji said:

While there aren't studies showing that collecting additional personal information prevents crime there are certainly statistics to suggest the opposite.

Recidivism

• During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
• Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
• Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
• These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

These would all be people who had already committed crimes, been arrested, entered into "the system", then released only to commit crime again after they had already been further documented by the government. Have fun on your walk I guess?

It's your job as a human being to distrust your government. You need to check on what they're doing and make sure that's what you want. And you need to make sure checks and balances are in place so that you're always in a position where you actually can get a good idea of what your government is doing. Never, in any circumstance, should you 'trust' your government.

Even if for some weird reason you think your current government is trustworthy, you still need to have them on a leash because any leniency you give them now rolls over to the next government, and the next, and the one after that. Can the trustworthiness of those offices be guaranteed to a degree that you're comfortable with surrendering your privacy?

If one thing is true about governments, it's that they don't like giving power back to the people when they no longer need it.

The fact that you don't think they're crazy is the very reason you shouldn't trust them. Some of the greatest atrocities in history (and today) are committed by governments. Anything any terrorists have done is small league, comparitively. You can count on them to act like normal human beings and have their personal and political interests more at heart than your and my interests. It's how it's always been, how it always will be and, make no mistake, how it is now.

Anyone who thinks they're in favor of stuff like this needs to take a long good look at themselves and think about how sound your opinion is. Have you done any research, given it good thought, talked to wise people you know, looked at possible worst case scenario's? Or did you not get past "well I got nothing to hide! and I don't want to get blown up by Arabs!" If you think that that's all there is to this, there's nothing I can really tell you other than please start treating stuff like this with the gravity it deserves and maybe think about it for a little longer than 10 minutes.

It's lazy and shortsighted, and as such, incredibly dangerous.

Always be Contra, even without the Konami Code.

In a society, it's reasonable to expect a basic level of cooperation. I don't see how a cheek swab, a head and hand and eye scan, and other basic measurements, are beyond your willingness to cooperate with *The Powers That Be*. How's that asking too much?

There is a huge difference between entering static personal biometric information into a national database and 24/7 surveillance/invasion of privacy.

Here is the thing. For once remember the Boston Bombings? Do you know what the main reason was these guys got caught? Right Surveillance Cameras. Your argumentation about socializing criminals back into your society is a total different matter which I will not go into since I have a bit of a radical opinion about that. Surveillance cameras help solving crimes and if our law system were much stricter you would not have these big problems you just stated.

As for the Government. Again I do not trust my Government. I question a lot of shit they are doing but I know they are not crazy and stuff like the Pre WW2 stuff will never occur in our countries again. They will not use these cameras or data for power hungry reason. We are not in Russia or China. At least most of us are not.

Things I would never accept are Cameras in our homes or in private places. But there is no reason to be against Cameras for example in public places at all. Except you want to be so free to do crimes. Same goes for your data. I do not mind that since I will never do such stuff and if I should be punished as fast as possible.