Freedom

[Gazruss]

Don't want to start a war here, but i have a question. I'm from the u-K originally, and the place i came from had a very high crime rate, beatings and muggings were a daily event. To counter this the cops put up CCTV in the city, after the camrea's were installed the crime rate dropped through the floor. but the local do-gooders complained about peoples freedom. And that big brother was now watching YOU. Me i really didn't give a crap about being watched, i was much happier about my wife and kids being able to shop with no problem from BG's. Now my question is this, if you take this thinking to another level, what is really wrong with having a database of everybody's DNA, would the average law abiding guy in the street really care if his DNA was on record if it caught a child killer after his first offence rather than his second..... Maybe it's just me, but in this day and age we have our freedom taken from us daily by terrorists and criminals , so why worry about ypur prints or DNA being on a database if you never intend to commit crimes anyway....... just a thought......

 

[Zak Smith]

Oh, this'll be fun.

While nobody out in public should have an expecation of privacy, full government surveillance is bad because it's an illegitimate use of tax funds (from a libertarian conception of government) and it's too easy for that same technology and infrastructure to be abused to infringe on the rights on citizens. The movie "Enemy of the State" demonstrates how this could happen.

As Ayn Rand said,

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is its power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anybody? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed, nor enforced, nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

As more and more laws are added, obsolete or silly laws are not removed, or laws are selectively enforced, the chance that you - an otherwise innocent person - will inadvertently break some law increase almost to certainty.

Now as soon as you upset some official or do not do what they want - even if you are within your "rights" - you will be blackmailed into a "plea bargain" situation because they can dig up something in your past.

Goodbye liberty. There are strong checks on government power for reasons. This is a big one.

-z

 

[Preacherman]

Another big problem, friend Gazruss - what happens in the future when medicine finds a way to predict specific diseases, or genetic risks, or something like that, through analyzing one's DNA? If your DNA is already on file, you might just find that your personal DNA "pattern" or "code" is made available to health- and life-insurance companies... and all of a sudden you can't get life insurance coverage because you're in a high-risk group, or you have to pay a hefty surcharge on your health-insurance premiums because your HMO has just figured out that statistically speaking, you're likely to cost them a lot of money. You might also be denied certain types of insurance (e.g. long-term care) because the insurers now know that you're likely to cost them more than their "average" client.

Still want the Government to keep your DNA on file???

 

[TallPine]

Worse yet, what if they can predict (or think they can predict) your future behavior based on your DNA?

"Uh - oh, this guy is one of those 'freedom types' - lock 'im up"

 

[2dogs]

Gazruss

Exactly how much of your freedom are you willing to give up for safety?

Exactly how much of MY freedom are you willing to give up for safety?

I mean we can make everyone in this country safe 100% of the time if we are willing to commit the resources and deprive the people of any semblance of a private life.

 

[Ian]

You ask why we should worry about being watched on registered if we're not criminals. My reason is that the whim of government (rather than any just principle) determines what behavior is criminal. Several of my hobbies are things the government is likely to criminalize, despite the fact that they cause no harm to anybody. If those hobbies do become completely illegal, I'm not about to change my habits just because some overzealous government bureaucrat doesn't like them. Hence, I don't want that same bureaucrat to be able to keep tabs on me.

 

[pax]

Gazruss,

Another reason, though those above are sufficient.

Imagine, for a minute, that I (some anonymous stranger on the internet) got ahold of your name, home address, phone number. All that sort of thing. A picture of you, not so flattering (in a swimsuit, perhaps? Or drunk?) Perhaps found a record of your credit report, including a bill or two you'd gotten behind on. Maybe a copy of your work history, your partner's work history, how much you pay for your house or pay in rent. What classes you took in college and whether you passed all of them. How much you earn a year. Which stores you visited last week, what you bought while there (viagra? hemorrhoid medication? urine-control pads?). How much you spent. That sort of thing.

Okay, I've gathered all that information about you. You don't know who I am, but I know all this about you, and perhaps more. And then I publish it, online, for all and sundry to read.

Would this bother you?

If so, why? Is it fear of "the law" which bothers you?

Or do you find that it's not just fear of "the law" which makes you want to keep control over some of that information, but fear of other people?

Me, I find, when I think of such scenarios, that I want to keep control of my own life's information, because I do not trust anonymous "others" to do what is right with that knowledge, and to leave me alone.

And I do not trust those anonymous "others," even if they are in the employ of the government.

Not all gov't employees are certifiably good people. Some of them are crooks and bullies. Just as publishing such information indiscriminately online, would subject you to a legitimate fear of crooks and bullies, so allowing the gov't to gather the info and store it ... wherever ... also subjects you to a legitimate fear of crooks and bullies.

So I simply don't want crooks and bullies having any control whatsoever over my personal life.

pax

Spying on your neighbors is invasion of privacy, unless you work for the FBI; then it's National Security. – Robert Anton Wilson

 

[PATH]

We will have screens in our homes that watch us all the time. Certain words will be removed from the vocabulary. We will be safe and we will be slaves! I won't trade my freedom for the illusion of safety!

 

[Blackhawk]

Gazruss, your answers are above, but be prepared for many more along the same lines.

Know anybody named Agricola over there? He's MIA from here....

 

[sm]

Hello Gazruss, Welcome!

Freedom: the ability to move or act freely, not enslaved, not controlled.

I don't want to be deprived of my freedom.

Here in the US we have a Social Security Card issued. Mine states in writing "Not to be used for Identification purposes". Our Gov't promised this in the inception of SSN's. Guess what my student ID is, Hospital Insurance # is, employee ID-you guessed it.

With this # someone can invade my freedom, steal my identity, ruin my credit.
DNA , well this stuff is intersting, since I got some exposure-kinda. Well ok perhaps a tweak here and a tweak there and walla you don't get cancer down the road. BUT HEED. Anything can be Positive AND Negative. Nuclear- ok nuclear medicine, nuclear bombs.
DNA...you know we the GOV'T can't control the people we need to create a situation so the people will depend on us. OR FORCE them to depend on the GOV't...Let's see Gazruss we have all his DNA code we can force him to obey...if he doesn't...lets just sprinkle a sample here and there and OOPS your BUSTED--you no longer are a threat to the gov't and an example used to FORCE others to obey.

1984 and Animal Farm couple of good reads by George Orwell (Sir Eric Blair). If you haven't read these books, think about what you read.

Oh its also my understanding NO Terroist has ever been caught by use of camera's in the UK. Correct me if wrong.

'73

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Safety

Hello All.

It sure seems that a lot of fuss has been-- and continues to be-- made over safety. Just how in the heck did anybody ever get the idea that they have a right to safety? It's impossible. No one can guarantee anyone's safety. Prudent people take steps to try and ensure their safety, but beyond that, all of this horse malarkey about safety is a waste of air. It is NOT the government's job to guarantee the safety of it's citizens. They can't do it! The world is not a safe place. Any ideas to the contrary are sheer illusion. The police forces assembled and maintained by the government are not there to provide you with safety. They are there to investigate your death and apprehend the criminals. AFTER THE FACT. So, all of the usurpations the government does "in the name of safety" are misguided at best, raw tyranny at worst.

 

[coati]

Gazruss, hi:

I'm guessing that no government or entity has the money to place cameras everywhere. Criminal activity, therefore, would be concentrated in those areas where no one cares to place cameras. Maybe my neighborhood wouldn't rate. Would yours?

Furthermore, I've seen many cases where the cameras merely record criminal activity. The case that comes to mind is that of the children who murdered the younger child leading the child away. This was a few years ago. Yes, it showed that the kids had custody of the toddler, but it didn't prevent the crime!

To add to Preacherman's DNA points: I think that continued research will prove that every man or woman has an inherited genetic fault. That alone will make every man or woman an insurance risk, as well as "proving" that he or she shouldn't procreate.

 

[King]

I would not be for having my DNA / finger prints, etc on a national data base. It's like having to prove that you are innocent of a crime that you haven't been charged with.

In other words, you are innocent until proven guilty in thsi country. I shouldn't have to prove that I'm innocent in advance.

I'm against generalized public video surveillance as it goes against the concept of freedom and liberty (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and to live on my terms as much as possible).

 

[justinh]

"A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[Chris Rhines]

I don't care to be watched, and my desires are more important that those of the government.

- Chris

 

[Leatherneck]

Second what Chris just said. Govs don't have rights; people do. Also agree with the potential abuses listed above.
TC
TFL Survivor

 

[NukemJim]

"and it's too easy for that same technology and infrastructure to be abused to infringe on the rights on citizens"

There have been a number of cases in the US of police departments/labs falsifying results to get convictions. Including at least one where a lab tech figured out how to get the fingerprints fromj someone on file and used it to "prove" that they committed certain crimes. In my city we had a guy who was LOCKED UP IN JAIL at the time of a murder convicted for it. Now they are begining to ask questions since the real murderer confessed.

I believe that these cases are in the minority but to paraphrase handgun control " if it costs one life is it worth it ?"

NukemJim

 

[4v50 Gary]

Don't like it for another reason.

The concept of the government having our DNAs on file so it can protect us removes us one step further from the notion of personal responsibility. We shouldn't walk around thinking that just because the government has our DNA, society is a lot safer.

Having DNA on file is useful only for solving crime, not crime prevention. A rapist will rape, a kidnapper will kidnap, a child molester will molest. Even if any of the three were caught, what happens? Five to seven years prison and then they're released to society to do what? Rape and molest again?

It's better that we as individuals accept responsibility for our own safety and take the appropriate measures to do so. The police are here to help us protect ourselves but not to safeguard us as individuals.

The real issue has to do with the criminals in society. Rehabilitation through classes and counseling for the most part doesn't work. The recedivism rate attests to that. It's a matter of substantive rehabilitation, that is, through reincarnation.

 

[Gazruss]

Wow...

go away for a day and look what happens.....lol

Like i said in the begining, i did not want to start a war here, just asking, and what i do find interesting is most (if not all) of the answers come from you guy's in the US, maybe i feel different coming from a country where we maybe have never really had "freedom" as you guys see it, our personal files have been on records since before i was born, we can't defend ourselves from BG's so any attempt at making our streets "SAFE" like CCTV is seen as a positive. I can see where you feel that any more restrictions are bad. I just wanted your views.

Think i got them BIG TIME

 

[ahenry]

Now my question is this, if you take this thinking to another level, what is really wrong with having a database of everybody's DNA,

Because its my DNA and I don’t think I’ll let you have it today.