Slashdot Mirror

While I think it is entirely arguable that this is true (and agree with it), it makes way too many assumptions.

What assumptions would those be?

We know that police have a bias towards shooting whites, this is possibly because of a lack of respect towards black men, but I am only willing to state the undeniable facts not the motivations which we can only ever guess at.

Well, even if we count that as an assumption, it's only one, that wasn't a statement of motivation, it was a statement about the consequences of an actuality.

Everyone should be treated with respect and consideration, and a lack of respect and consideration towards police has helped to create the situation where we are now (opinion).

Everyone should be treated with respect and consideration, and a lack of respect and consideration from police, has helped to create the situation where we are now. Counter to your opinion.

If people respected police more, they would likely respect them more, and possibly start shooting more blacks bringing a stricter and more thorough policing to the ghettos (opinion).

That's speculation, and a weird seeking of outcomes at that.

Part of the reason police stopped policing black neighborhoods was people started holding them accountable, with police brutality and calling them biased.

And I thought you weren't going to speculate as to motivation. Now you break your own word? How can I trust you?

But police are supposed to be brutal, police are going to kill people, they will kill innocent people, and they will abuse their power.

Nope. Not in this country. Are you sure you wrote that correctly?

But they need to be above the law to a certain respect to conduct their business.

Oh you mean Qualified immunity? Perhaps, but even that is arguable, however it is certainly not to your articulation.

Look at what all these years of holding police accountable has done, they have simply moved out of black neighborhoods.

Ok, so? We take this as true, then what?

Of course, the argument that I would present to you is that the police are not being held accountable, that instead they are behaving in a counter-productive way. Otherwise, they would not be allowed to engage in even the practices which you allege they have done.

While our white communities thrive, they are over policed, white people are shot left and right by police, they are forced to undergo stops and frisks all out of proportion to the crimes committed in the area, but we respect police and treat them with consideration, and we have a white murder rate comparable to the safest European countries. While black communities have crime statistics that look like Congo or Sudan.

Stop and Frisk in NYC:

In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times. 140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
77,704 were black (54 percent). 44,581 were Latino (31 percent). 17,623 were white (12 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times. 278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent). 155,033 were black (55 percent). 89,937 were Latino (32 percent). 28,913 were white (10 percent). 152,196 were aged 14-24 (52 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times. 352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent). 196,570 were black (54 percent). 115,088 were Latino (32 percent). 40,713 were white (11 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times. 457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent). 267,468 were black (53 percent). 147,862 were Latino (29 percent). 53,500 were white (11 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times. 410,936 were totally innocent (87 perce

The NYPD's own Stop-and-Frisk Data disagrees with you.

The best part is the "completely innocent". Even presuming a large number of criminals doing the simplest of possible crimes (jaywalking) are stopped, and they still manage to be unable to push charges ~82-90% of the time. Since it sounds like the data is from the first report, before most trivial charges like that would be dropped, it's not even one of those "well they decided to drop the charges later so they really DID do something". It's simply that the NYPD's attempts to build community "trust" have been heavily reliant upon groin groping black and latino men. They're the TSA of police.

Jeez, you're making we old Slashdotters look bad.
Just the department's own stop-and-frisk data show how very, very, very wrong you are.

http://www.nyclu.org/content/s...

"Lets just give it up and acknowledge the race card has been overused and no longer holds any merit"

Let's not. Even if it appears that way *in some cases*, the cops have been mistreating minorities to a greater degree for a long time and it's not improved much.

The stop-and-frisk reports from the NYPD during the Bloomberg years shows that clearly.
http://www.nyclu.org/content/s...

The recent DOJ report on the Baltimore PD is even more damning and backs up what black residents have been complaining about for DECADES as well as what former Baltimore cop and ex-Marine Michael Wood has been saying for years about police culture and behavior.

Also, there are hundreds of thousands of muslims in NY... it's hard to believe the cops singled out those folks for random harassment just 'cause they felt like it

Why is it so hard to believe? It happens to black people all the time.

You don't mention that Stop And Frisk was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75%

You pointing out two potential anomalies in no way invalidates your sides sins. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not an eye for an eye nor escalation. What are the figures for Romney's female staff, in % of staff and % of salary? How about Ted Cruz? Provide context if you want yoru accusations to be taken as a meaningful critique and not as a soundbite.

"-1 Disagree"?

You don't mention that Stop And Frisk was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75%

Nor did the GP mention either political party -- YOU turned it into Dems vs Reps inanity ... Milwaukee is one of the racist cities today! Who fuckin' cares? This isn't some stupid North vs South bullshit ... this is EVERYWHERE. Look up redlined districts in Detroit, you idiot.

You don't mention that Stop And Frisk was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75%

You pointing out two potential anomalies in no way invalidates your sides sins. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not an eye for an eye nor escalation. What are the figures for Romney's female staff, in % of staff and % of salary? How about Ted Cruz? Provide context if you want yoru accusations to be taken as a meaningful critique and not as a soundbite.

You don't mention that Stop And Frisk was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75%

By the csv file for 2012 avalable at: http://www.nyclu.org/content/s...

57.9% of (black|black-hispanic) people who were stopped were arrested.
65.7% of the people whose race was recorded and it wasn't black or black-hispanic who were stopped were arrested.

61.7% of stops were of black or black-hispanic people.

So they stop the people who are less likely to be arrested more often. So where are your stats?

As I quoted:

will protect your rights if you have to go to court

Which is where the "they can't just demand" bit comes in.

And that worked so well too:

In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.

Please.

Oh, didn't mention warrants yet, did I? Yeah, that's right, even if your 'find my iphone' is just pointing to a location in the middle of nowhere and there's only one person there, cops can't just demand that they empty out all their pockets;

Really? That's news to me.

The free app records video and audio, hides when requested and lets users send backup copies of recordings to the ACLU for safekeeping.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57467073-83/aclu-app-lets-android-users-secretly-tape-the-police/

http://web.archive.org/web/20131022194439/http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57467073-83/aclu-app-lets-android-users-secretly-tape-the-police/

http://www.aclu-nj.org/yourrights/the-app-place/

http://download.cnet.com/ACLU-NJ%20Police%20Tape/3000-2094_4-75742382.html

http://www.nyclu.org/app

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57405594-281/boston-admits-it-cell-phone-photography-is-not-a-crime/

The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people.

Yes, and obtaining intelligence on political movements like Occupy Wall Street.

The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers.

Oh? What's that you say? TFA is about warrantless surveillance undertaken by the FBI, which is the federal agency with explicit domestic police powers.

The suspect in this case is accused of assisting a terrorist group.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, providing "material support" to a terrorist group can be as simple as expressing support for it. And having a terrorism suspect browse your web site is enough to spark a secret investigation of your organization which scares away many of the donors who keep it in operation.

East Germany's secret police had both an intelligence function and police powers.

The FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, at least, are agencies with police powers and intelligence operations. Heck, even the NYPD is in on the deal.

Their primary purpose was to keep the East German Communist party in power.

Given that NSA snooping hasn't indisputably foiled even a single terrorist plot, and the FBI instigated virtually all of the "terrorist" plots they've busted, I have to wonder what is the primary purpose of these agencies. Surely not to intimidate political dissidents!

You could be arrested and imprisoned for such things as making jokes about the nation's leadership, wanting to form a new political party,

Here in the U.S., they've at least figured out that making jokes about the leadership is essentially harmless and does nothing to erode their power. If people started to rise up to challenge them, we might see that change; the architecture of oppression is in place. As for forming a new political party, it does no harm to talk of it, because it's essentially impossible due to the laws in most areas which protect the two incumbent parties.

being a member of an unapproved church,

Like a mosque?

trying to leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot)

It won't get you shot, but you apparently can't leave without permission. The U.S. apparently has more finesse than East Germany did.

and many other possible infractions.

There are plenty of other infractions that'll get you in trouble, like walking while black,

If I am walking down a sidewalk with my gf and they ask for my ID, I can say the polite version of "fuck off", and they can't do a damn thing because they have no probable cause and I am not required to possess any identification. All I have to do is give them my name.

I guess you don't live in New York City or maybe you live in NYC and are white and don't have to deal with stop-and-frisk

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

No, you don't. The modern police in the western tradition follow from the Peelian principles.

Maybe you're an anarchist, but clearly you're not a black guy in NYC, or you would've thought this to be a relatively minor incident.

Duh, but they still have at least 2,397 cameras placed on the streets of the city. So "thousands" is correct.

Tyranny? Huh? When was the last time you or a family member were pulled from your home without a warrant or just cause and beaten by any arm of the government? The West if far from the killing fields. Stop being so excessive with your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

Umm...It happens all the time. Although not to me personally. Most likely because I'm not poor and black or mistakenly accosted by jackbooted thugs.

True, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution only protects us from against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant for most searches. The word "unreasonable" has been slowly leveraged by the courts over the decades to allow all sorts of impromptu searches by Police.

But there was no aircraft when the 4th was penned, and had their been, I seems that the practice of using an aircraft for police observation would certainly have been curtailed.

The use of a manned aircraft to search your property brings with it immediate and obvious notification. Its big and noisy and expensive, the pilot has to pee once in a while meaning it could never be continuous, with or without a warrant.

But with small, reasonably quiet battery operated drones, you can park it outside someones apartment window, and watch what is going on inside, useing thermal imaging, remote sound recording, and full motion video, and you can do this 24/7 using a couple of devices that cost less than $5000 each. And you can do it without a warrant, because you are not actually entering the premises.

If your conscious allows you to sneak that sort of activity in as being "not unreasonable" you probably have a career opportunity at a three letter agency.

Don't forget New York City's wonderful stop and frisk policy.

Which stopped once he got off the drugs and started acting normal. And by normal I mean not looking and acting like a homeless guy sufferring from PTSD and yelling at everyone.

So what you're saying, is, your nephew isn't black or latino.

• Sneak and Peek: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/sneak-and-peek
• Stop and Frisk http://www.nyclu.org/stopandfrisk
• Warrantless Wiretapping http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/07/federal-appeals-court-says-warrantless-wiretapping-is-legal/
• License Plate Readers http://www.policeone.com/police-products/traffic-enforcement/license-plate-readers/
• Civil Seizure http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091112/METRO/911120388
• Forfeit without Trial http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/megaupload-judge-recusal/
• Extraordinary Rendition http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/
• Assassination without trial http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Many people are laughing all the way to the morgue.

Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.

By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".

Should also mention that the NYPD is particularly bad on the police state mentality:
* Their attacks on peaceful protesters during Occupy Wall St, most notably Anthony Bologna pepper-spraying. Forget the First Amendment's assembly clause.
* They're currently engaged in a massive program to spy on Muslims, all without a warrant, without even notifying the jurisdictions they're sending their officers into, and of course violating the First Amendment's free exercise clause by very explicitly targeting anybody who practices Islam.
* The stop-and-frisk policy, where people (who are overwhelmingly black or Latino) just walking down the street are stopped and searched by police. Not because they're suspected of committing a crime, just because the officers feel like it. Roughly 90% of the 4 million people stopped this way were guilty of no crime whatsoever. Forget the Fourth Amendment's protections.

And of course the occasional black or brown person shot to death by the NYPD for no obvious reason.

If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

OK, 1. Presumption of Innocence, and 2. The NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" program.

You're working on old assumptions. Yes, the NYPD is stopping and frisking random, innocent people on the street.

Sadly this is nothing new in NYC; they have been doing stop and frisks for years. I wonder what happens when they deploy this technology and find a firearm on someone who is licensed to carry one? There are actually people who hold such licenses in NYC; given the extreme anti-gun attitude of the NYPD they'll probably wind up looking at the wrong end of a Glock and discovering the wonders of face meeting asphalt. That's if they are lucky; if they aren't they'll wind up being shot 40 times as they reach for their drivers license/pistol permit.

Just as a correction, you don't need to carry papers in New York State:
    http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-showing-id-nypd-our-times

I'm not as brave as I wish I were with the random searches in NYC. What I do is say "no thank you" and leave the station and then re-enter the station at another entrance.

There is a good book on this subject, "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45" by Milton Mayer. It gives you a much better understanding of how the Nazi's really gained power vs. the silly version you get from popular culture and high school history classes. In some senses it's very chilling because the parallels are strong but you also see how powerful the parallels were to what happened here during the cold war yet we managed self correct. Reading that book was what made me realise why Joseph Welch's standing up to McCarthy was so important, if decent people had done the same thing early enough in Germany it really would have prevented the Holocaust. Again I'm not as brave as I'd like, but I've seen the a little bit of power of standing up to the thugs at the airport. When I opt-out of the porno-vision scanner there are often a number of people who summon up the courage to do so as well.

http://www.nyclu.org/publications/palm-card-demonstrating-new-york-city-2009

Courtesy of Surt in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2448946&cid=37530940

http://www.nyclu.org/publications/palm-card-demonstrating-new-york-city-2009

Maybe you haven't heard of the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy? It is clearly unconstitutional, but goes on anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-powell/stopping-stop-and-frisk-i_b_647298.html

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

-molo

I'll just leave this here. You might want to read under the 5th Amendment.

There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137

Of those sources, only one was valid, and that one was USA Today. NYCLU? Come on! I saw those guys and even talked with a few of them. The one that I remember most was the one that said that the police should not try to prosecute NAMBLA members because their lust for small boys should be considered a "thought crime", even if they act on it.

Now, for the USA Today article. Here is a snippet:

Fiore, 46, was one of 1,806 people arrested here during the four-day gathering last summer. Police used orange netting, plastic handcuffs and city buses to handle the crowd. When Fiore was arrested, she was part of a group chanting slogans against President Bush on the sidewalk across from Macy's. According to police, she resisted arrest, obstructed governmental administration and committed disorderly conduct.

But Fiore says she did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech and has challenged the city to prove otherwise in court. So have nearly 200 other protesters whose cases are making their way through the courts five months later.

That "obstructed governmental administration" charge, means that she blocked a bus or delegates. Sorry, but these people had a right to attend the convention, even if she disagreed with their politics.

The part that really got me was when she said, "did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech". That's exactly what these guys would shout as they were fighting the police that were trying to arrest them. I saw one guy get in the face of a delegate members screaming at the top of his lungs, "BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!! YOU WILL PAY FOR THE 100 MILLION DEATHS IN IRAQ!" (Iraq's total population is 20 million, btw). He was arrested because he would not allow the delegates to pass. I saw him do this for at least half an hour before they took him away. What was he yelling as they hauled him off? You guessed it: "My First Amendment rights are being violated! I wasn't doing anything!"

Another quote from the USA Today article:

Protesters who blocked a bus carrying Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention await police transport.

There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137

This is a worthwhile question. Currently, movie and videogame ratings are undertaken voluntarily; the ESRB rates games and the MPAA rates movies. You are not required to submit your game or movie for rating. Game stores and movie theaters are free not to carry an unrated game or movie, but that's a business choice.

This law (and others like it) FORCE you to submit for rating, no matter what. It is compelled speech. Think of it as the Free speech analogy to "Freedom from religion."

If you're further curious, read the NYCLU letter to NY Governor Patterson. They do an excellent job of explaining not only lay arguments for why this is a bad idea (major works of literature are equally violent) but point to several court cases that support their argument.

How is this not like the VChip? The FCC gets far broader powers because they're regulating the public airwaves. These are, in theory at least, airwaves that you and I own, so restrictions on vulgarity, obscenity, etc. can be far stricter there than in other circles. A game console is not utilizing the public RF spectrum, so obscenity claims get much tougher to make.

Maybe you should consider subscribing to a newspaper or something; you seem out of touch with the world. Might also want to lay off the drugs a little bit so you can get off your ass and help us do something so you don't HAVE to worry about losing freedoms.

First google hit for freedoms we've lost since 9/11:

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

You should probably give the rest of nyclu.org a look, too, since you're from New York.

Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools

Experimenting on Someone Else's Children

• Proposed Rules (PDF)
• Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting contact page
• New York Civil Liberties Union's page

• Proposed Rules (PDF)
• Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting contact page
• New York Civil Liberties Union's page

Tuesday, January 16, 2007
7.00pm
NYU School of Law
Lipton Hall (located in D'Agostino Hall)
110 West 3rd Street

In 2001, President Bush issued a secret executive order authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of people in the United States. In May 2006, the nation learned that the National Security Agency has been building a massive database of Americans' phone records.

A federal judge has already ruled the warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. The Bush Administration claims that it has the inherent authority to continue it. Join the New York Civil Liberties Union and other co-sponsoring organizations for a free town hall meeting to discuss warrantless wiretapping and the threat it poses to civil liberties. Learn how you can take action to stop unconstitutional NSA spying and protect your rights to privacy and freedom of speech.

http://www.nyclu.org/nsa_spying_campaign.html

It seems that there are two camps here, people who read the article/are familiar with the back story, and those who want to complain about America/New York/the MTA/or their own local government and project it on this situation. The only common mistake I see in some of the former camp's posts is the budgetary one. The latter shares a theme of sound and fury. I am not sure about the reprehensibility of the copyright use here - I can generally tell when a map is out of date or in error - can the same be said for a tourist?

Now, I grew up and still live in Manhattan, and I am pretty familiar with the MTA. It is not as much of a hassle to get a paper map as has been suggested - station booths generally do have the folding map - both bus and subway - available, for free, and just recently there was a giveaway of a small pocket map the size of a credit card when there was a change in service. The MTAs maps online have simply gotten beter over time as has their site design/usefulness.

Also, there have been people making their own MTA maps for PDA screens for a very long time, some of which are very innovative in their use of space. This guy uses the MTA's map, knows that to be illegal. He refers to it as his map, which it isn't. He get a lot of press claiming innovation, which it isn't. He gets a C&D. He then does what everyone else has been doing for years, making his own (and distributing it). Why does anyone care about this?


A better question is this - why hasn't anyone in this thread directed their fury at the real problem with using the MTA: being subject to the city's blatant attempt to weaken the 4th Amendment?

This article is a crock. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wir e/sns-ap-subway-searches-poll,0,5333035.story?coll =sns-ap-nation-headlines It's not even a representative sample at all. Obligatory URL http://www.nyclu.org/mta_searches_suit_pr_081805.h tml

The cameras seem to be a good idea on paper, but as with anything involving the MTA, implementation is going to be the key factor. If the MTA does their usual bullshit, they'll not do anything in the boroughs outside manhattan, and it'll just bee another pisspoor excuse 'for security' HOowever, the MTA still does 'random screenings' that have done nothing to improve security while trampling over everyone's civil rights, and being questionably unconstitional. http://www.nyclu.org/mta_searches_suit_pr_081805.h tml

OK, keep in mind while reading the following that I'm a member of the ACLU. I'm going to touch on some of their less popular positions, though.

The ACLU tends to be fanatical on matters of speech, even when most people would not necessarily be on their side. The case that Bill O'Reiley likes to rail against is where they have helped defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)... they really do believe that everybody has the right to say anything, no matter what it is and what might be done with that information.

They have also been famous in defending (and winning) the right of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and fascist Nazi-praising groups to march. Again, for them it's a bright line: no matter how vile the speech, the speaker has the right to say it.

They have also been very active in challenging the Bush Administration's position that they are able to keep suspected terrorists incommunicado for as long as they like.

I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world where the ACLU positions always ended up prevailaing. I do, however, believe that they are a very necessary counterbalance to those interests that would drag us back to the bad old days of McCarthyism (I would ask Ann Coulter, "Have you no shame, Madame?") and other reactionary movements.

On September 11th, I sent money to two groups: the Red Cross and the ACLU.

The U.S. isn't far behind in terms of number of surveillance cameras. There are thousands of such cameras in Manhattan alone.

"Could I have a source for the Giuliani comment?"

A quick Google search on Giuliani DNA turns up a lot of hits. The comment seems to have been reported in the New York Times in December 1998, for which no free online record exists, but, the New York Civil Liberties Union mentions it in a very dry paper about DNA, if that's reputable enough for you:

"The rounding up of a whole class of people, the collection of physical samples, and the extraction of DNA information from those samples are illegal in the United States of America. Or so we had thought.

"New York Governor George Pataki wants to expand the state DNA databank from violent felons to all felons. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants to include all newborn children. Meanwhile, the New York City Police Department has been collecting DNA samples from suspects without their consent or their knowledge, and without the benefit of court orders."

This news report references thi s 404 NYT page.

And this message-board post gives a specific date in the NYT, which is as close as I could get in five minutes:

"When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: "...I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children...There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified..." It's not invasive," the Mayor said. "It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified."-N.Y. Times 12/17/98 "Giuliani Backs DNA Testing of Newborns for Identification"

Finally, check out more of Robert Lederman's comments. As someone who's been falsely arrested over 40 times for painting unflattering portraits of Giuliani, he has a special interest in DNA fingerprinting.

Jamie McCarthy