Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
To be honest, I think there are plenty of good reasons why I don't consider it ethical for the government to keep banks of DNA on everyone. If you've been booked before, I'm ok with it.
Now remember, the government does have my DNA, since I'm a soldier. I've got no qualms about that, but the event that I don't want to happen is the government collecting samples at birth and getting too into biometrics. It's a privacy issue. Keep offenders on file, but leave innocent people alone and let their genetic code be their own secret. We don't need everyone logged like that, I feel it's supremely unethical to do that.
This sounds rather stupid though. If you're arrested for a crime, you're arrested for a crime. The racial makeup of the majority proportion of criminals is immaterial. DNA is colorblind in that fact. If you collect DNA from a rape victim that points to someone, regardless of race, that DNA doesn't say "Obviously a black guy". That DNA says "It is this dude."
Now, DNA by itself is not enough evidence, nor should it be. DNA is a solid back-up for making a case a slam dunk, but if you have an actual proven alibi it doesn't matter if they find your DNA or not. But if you match DNA at a scene of a crime to someone on file, of course they are going to get investigated, and if most people who have committed prior crimes and have DNA in the database are of a certain race, then whatever. It isn't any form of profiling, because profiling is a guess, it's an "art" you could say, or even a soft science. DNA isn't. DNA is proof that somehow that person was associated with the source of that DNA.
I'm sort of surprised at who was on which side of this on the Supreme Court though... Usually it's the more liberal side of things that's like "Oh, giving up privacy so the powers that be can track and control you? What could go wrong?" I would have expected all the conservatives to have Scalia's opinion on the subject, and all the liberals to side with Justice Breyer.
edited 3rd Jun '13 10:49:10 AM by Barkey
Because generally, people aren't allowed to run behind you, scooping your DNA. I can see taking DNA in investigations, after all, we allow breathalyzers and fingerprinting, and medical examinations of a person's body.
But I really, really, REALLY hope I don't need to point out the inherent danger of wholesale DNA cataloguing.
It really is amazing what we sacrifice for "security".
edited 3rd Jun '13 11:36:27 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorIf you need me to add a disclaimer, Karkadinn, that you did not use the word "security" and that I added it, so be it. You didn't say security. I did.
With that out the way, my point is that I find this clear step toward cataloguing people (on par with chips and implants) to be too police-state-like for me, even with the ostensible benefit of "fewer innocent people in jail."
Additionally, the lack of DNA testing is not the reason for all the wrongful convictions, so linking DNA testing to wrongful convictions is a smokescreen that solves nothing.
People get locked up because until recently; withholding exculpatory evidence, coaching and intimidating witnesses; and coercing testimony were considered acceptable investigative and prosecutorial techniques. In many cases, they still are.
But let's not fix that, let's all tag each other like cattle instead.
edited 3rd Jun '13 11:54:17 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYou know, guys, all this talk about workers staying positive in the face of non-meritocratic systems and such... it reminds me of the first act of They Live!
I think the protagonist even says something specifically that amounts to just that and sums it up in one sentence.
Well, but that was when he was still mellow and resigned to his fate and hadn't put the glasses on...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Representative Peter King: If I were Eric Holder, I’d resign
Senator Graham: ‘No evidence’ IRS targeting directed from White House
So with Lautenburg dead their are no more WW 2 vets in the Senate.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:51:46 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016House panel seeks to boost Pentagon war spending by $5B
![]()
basically, Congress conceals "giving fuckloads of money to Boeing and other big vehicle design firms" under the guise of 'military R&D"
Thats what people refer to when they say "The Military-Industrial complex"
Its also why even though the pentagon has specifically proposed budget cuts and other such things, Congress will hear no part of it because closing military bases or thinning the number of troops/research projects would make those congressmen look bad to voters who rely on their jobs at said military industrial complex factories.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:35:15 PM by Midgetsnowman
The military says: "We have enough tanks, we need more healthcare and more body armour."
The congress critters decide: "But we make the tanks in my district. We can't get rid of that. Let's cut your healthcare and give you more tanks. You won't need body armour in a tank."
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickWhen one of the generals said that the military didn't need more money, Paul Ryan accused him of lying.
How was it illegal, out of curiosity?
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:54:24 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
To them, the Military serves three purposes, really.
1: jobs for constituents at factories to keep them in office.
2: convenient symbols to wave around while the actual troops are overseas and cant speak for themselves.
3: throwing money at the military allows them to appear patriotic and strongly worried about national defense to uninformed voters.
Its less about the actual people i the army so much as what they can use the symbol of the military for.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:59:38 PM by Midgetsnowman

Well then there's no good reason to object to the government having your DNA. Not like they'll realistically develop a biological superweapon that only kills people with specific genes.
But that's a story for another time.