Slashdot Mirror
A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers?
fragmer writes "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested a plan on Wednesday that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal U.S. workers. The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will 'uniquely identify the person' applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged. Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."
The power lies with the proles.
"Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."
Just by saying that, he's acknowledging that its a civil liberties issue.
Gattaca anyone?
politicians it seems ; Big Brother Syndrome
A day does not pass without some u.s. politician or lawmaker coming up with an idea that would be a step on the road that will turn u.s. people into slave labor.
Read radical news here
We should not stand for this! We will not stand for it. Stand up America!
http://www.xpurple.com
If they do this to all the suits first and give us techs access to the system. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Bloomberg is a dumbass who watches too much TV. DNA comparisons take weeks to perform, not 5 minutes like on television procedural police dramas. Can you imagine having to wait 4 to 6 weeks every time you cross a border, fly on an airplane, perform a transaction at the DMV, etc. while someone checks out your DNA to verify your identity?
Omnes stulti sunt.
Requiring all Jewish residents to register as such and wear a Star of David on their shirts is also just a purely administrative aid, to stop people cheating the system and could never be used as a real civil liberties issue either.
I wish people would learn that we can trust the government simply because they tell us we can.
However, the first time they use it to identify a criminal, thus making every person in the database a potential suspect, it becomes a civil liberties issue.
till we move to a country with a sense of freedom.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Well I would certainly feel that my privacy was being violated. My DNA is private, thank you very much, and the state most certainly does not have a right to the details of it. It would be nice to think that this is the sort of suggestion that would lose a politician his job, but I have a bad feeling that some will find it rather popular.
Any database that allows people to determine the identities of all the people at any scene, whether it is a crime scene or otherwise, is a civil liberties issue. You were at WHAT social gathering? With WHOM? Now we're going to all have to start behaving like Ethan Hawke in GATTACA, scrubbing off all our dead skin cells before we go out.
Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
Let's hope nobody takes any work home with them and has it stolen from their unlocked car.
HELL NO!
And then you drop a bombshell like this? Not just an ID but a complete DNA database?
Somebody needs to explain the concept of babysteps to this guy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
And i thought the last mayor was a psycho.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
It's like an uber version of the passport thing they're pushing for here in the UK. Hope y'all fix this, folks. This is -not- -good- -news-. -kam
It's not only the civil liberties problem - it's too damn expensive. I don't want my tax money going toward that, I'll take the .002% higher risk of getting robbed.
But it's also a liberty problem. When the government has the capability to turn into Big Brother, then as time goes on the probability approaches 1 that they will.
ResidntGeek
> Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the
> Social Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate
> citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue.
I'm sure that when a CD-ROM containing DNA markers for every single worker in New York's economy is obtained by the Russian mafia after being stolen from a (vendor|employee|contractor)'s (house|car|laptop), the tight security afforded by the mandatory (fingerprint|weak encryption|screen door) security will be of great comfort to the affected. And instead of some artificial construct like a SSN, a physically significant identity will have been stolen.
Not to mention that completely resequencing a human's genome is incredibly expensive even today.
What an incredible jackass. If this comes to pass, move to Singapore, at least they seem to have some grip on what makes business work there.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
You better be trolling.
I see the benefits of this. I really do. But then we're opening ourselves up to a whole bunch of problems, not the least of which are the aforementioned and summarily dismissed civil liberties violations. And what about the health insurance issue? If they've got your DNA, and decide they are so inclined, they can determine which genetic diseases to which you are predisposed, and HIPAA goes right out the window as the concept of 'preexisting conditions' becomes something entirely different.
Karma: actual phenomenon or merely a species of chameleon?
Why isn't there an "Update: Mayor lynched on front lawn of city hall by anti-orwellian mob, mob suggests politicians be tracked with radio implants and DNA database for easier reining in. Apparently this isn't a civil rights issue." attached to this story?
When will gov't realise this?
Congratulations! You win!
Bloomberg doesn't have the smarts to propose something like this, nor the motivation. He's being the lightning rod for somebody else. I guess he or "they" figure his political career is near enough over that he can be sacrificed.
Does this moron know how much it would COST to do that? We're talking a DNA sample from every working age adult (15 to ...?).
Just WHAT is this supposed to give us? Are employers who currently hire illegal aliens suddenly going to pay for DNA/fingerprinting of their employees to find out if they're legal?
Or is this another expense for the immigration department / police departments? Will they have to check the DNA of everyone they arrest on immigration issues?
That guy is an idiot.
Even without the Civil Liberty issues, this idea would be too expensive to implement and yield NOTHING.
It looks like "immigration" is this year's "child porn". All you politicians need to get on "immigration" today!
I take some of your skin and hair from you while you sleep, go next door and murder your neighbour, leaving traces of your skin and hair everwhere and leave.
They find traces of your DNA and come round your house a arrest you.
I walk away scott free.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Are there no identical twins in the United States?
So rather than make the cards harder to forge, he tries to solve the stated problem by proposing we give the government our most detailed personal information and trust that they will never use it for purposes outside their stated goal. My favorite part of the article is that he is apparently qualified to make this type of statement because he is a successful businessman.
Hey, Bloomberg. I'm just a normal guy, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion that your idea sucks.
1. Government notices problem.
2. Media takes problem, makes it a big news story.
3. Government takes problem and introduces legislation that does more to restrict ordinary law-abiding citizens.
4. Profit (More Power)
How many years was illegal immigration going on and companies using them (persumably this DNA database will be designed to curtail that)? And when exactly did the government/news decide to make it a central issue? The governemnt must have seen what a great tool fear, distrust, and anger were to gain power for themselves.
I don't get it.
How expensive do you think it would really be? You'd have the expense of tissue storage, of initial sequencing, and of data storage. Of the three, the second is probably the most expensive, but automatic sequencing has gotten far cheaper in recent years.
DNA evidence isn't practical in a lot of crimes. When's the last time the cops went swabbing for samples for when the local 7-11 had a shoplifter? The potential costs in terms of money and time would be better used to hire and train better quality law enforcement. Hell, put the money towards our national and state education programs to help make America's students more competitive and motivated coming out of high school. I think that'd do more for reducing crime rates than making CSI:America.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
Due to the advanced editing and revision facities offered by Slashdot's cutting-edge architecture, I'm afraid that I have to spread my blather across two posts. My sincerest apologies.
([Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!] - update your fucking software, this isn't a fucking stone tablet I'm hammering out here.)
Anyways, let's suppose that you can cram some large number of compressed DNA markers (0/1 for some variant, or whatever... many ways to code this) onto a few DVD's. Now, instead of just being useful for stealing identities and establishing credit, you have data that can be used to quietly discriminate when hiring, firing, insuring, lending to, or buying from any individual in this database.
If you think this won't be abused, you probably also believe that the journalists the NSA and FBI have been tracking (via their phone calls) are all terrists.
Anyone remember those catchy "visualize armed revolution" bumper stickers that started appearing after people got sick of the "visualize world peace" delusions? Just an aside, that's all. Nothing to see here...
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
"insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974
GATTACA. Watch it.
Get your own free personal location tracker
But it will stop all terrorists, sexual predators, sexual terroristic predators and sexual predatory terrorists! Surly you don't want our children to all into their hands, which is what you do if you oppose our plan.
P.S.: God bless America!
I'm not saying I believe this argument automatically means it's a bad idea. It's just one argument I've heard tossed around that makes some level of sense. Though DNA is presumably currently hard enough to fake that it wouldn't be an issue. But I guess someone could potentially apply for a job with a hair they plucked of your coat on the bus or something?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
75% of the Germans who made a cross at the 'Jewish' religion tab
in the 1933 census where killed 12 years later.
Can you be sure that there will always be a democratically
elected government for the rest of your life?!
The downside? It violates everything that we stand for, i.e. illegal search and seizure, and the fact that it reminds one too much of old East-German stasi methods.
"The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will 'uniquely identify the person' applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged."
Oh great, another plan where we track innocent people in an effort to find the guilty ones. Maybe if they chose opposite strategies they wouldn't be met with such public opposition.
What stops that from happening now?—In fact, you can be pretty sure it is happening now.
The employers who bother to ask for an SS card or even go as far as to check the number are not the problem. Even if the workers are illegal they are paying taxes so that's at least a good thing. The only crime is being in the US illegally.
The actual problem are the employers hiring illegals and paying them under the table.
The proposed program will only harm actual tax paying workers by collecting informatino that will only help to make them suspects in crimes.
"Why was your fingerprint on the telephone in that bedroom?" "Because I stayed at a holiday inn this weekend."
This is definitly bad, but it is not that much different than what exists in most countries today. Already, today, you have some sort of social insurance card, probably a government issued health card, you have credit cards and bank cards which report all transactions to the government, to open any sort of buisness, or do home repair on your house, you need to get an inspection where some government official enters your home or buisness. You can be asked for ID or searched anywhere at any time.
DNA tracking is just a technological improvement on what has been happening (probably with your support) for the last 50 years. It is certainly evil, but it is not a sign of a comming Big Brother society... that Big Brother society has been being built with overwelming popular support forever now.
Look, every benifit has a cost. You want to live in a society where everything from how long you are allowed to grow grass in your yard, to what sorts of jokes you can tell, to what file formats you can play on your MP3 player, to what version of history is allowed to be taught to children, is regulated and controlled by the government. The price you pay for having the government micromanage every single aspect of your life, is a police state. There is no way the government can run and regulate everything (as most of you want it to be), and not have the government monitoring what it is regulating. A police state is the inevitable consequence of a powerful, centrallized, activist government.
In this case, if you support the idea of the government cracking down on illegal immigration, well how the hell is the government supposed to do that effectivly? Now, I am totally against restricting immigration, so I can consistantly be against this sort of thing. But if you don't support some sort of centralized and foolproof tracking of Americans, then how the hell do you expect to crack down on illegal immigration? The price you pay for the "awesome social benifit" of having fewer dark skin people, is Big Brother tracking you by DNA... Much like when you buy a car or stereo or house, you must weight the costs against the benifits.
insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue.
Thank Goodness he insisted it wouldn't violate our privacy or liberties. I feel much better now.
After all, a politician would never LIE to me, right? I mean how many times, really, as a public official lied about activities that involved denial of liberties. It is not like they detain citizens illegally, or that they listen in and track citizens every action. And it certainly isn't like they would use that to spy on journalists trying to keep them semi-honest.
Why shouldn't I trust them?
This message has been brought to you by Fox News, where "fair" and "balanced" are two words in some dictionary.
Gattaca
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
Realize it?
It's not as if they don't understand that it's a gross violation of our rights. Their concern is how to get us to swallow it, not whether it's right or wrong.
Any New Yorkers reading this, if you happen to encounter Mayor Bloomberg at a restaurant or a party or something, throw your food at him, or just slap him across the chops and call him a fascist asshole. Once this has happened to him fifty or sixty times, he may get the hint.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If a "legal U.S. worker" refuses to be DNA tested on religious grounds, can they force that worker to be so tested?
To control and track the rest of us in their march to own this place and force all of us into vitural or actual slavery. This has already happened to a great degree. The social contract that business and government once had for the improvement of the human condition has been corrupted by these people and corporations.
You are most likely, already a slave.
Many say that this social contract never existed, But without give and take, anarchy and destruction of our current socity will be the final result.
Real world police work is NOT like the movies/TV. The GP needs to get a clue.
.1% of the cases they get.
If your house is robbed, the cops don't even take finger prints. It's too much work/time. The payoff isn't there. They sure won't be scouring the house for DNA samples.
The only time they do go to all that work is for high profile murder cases.
So, this program would cost a LOT of money and be useless in 99.9% of crimes "investigated" by the cops.
In the remaining 0.1%, 70% of those would be useless because the cops already have a suspect (someone related to the victim, duh!) and can get the DNA/fingerprints when they need them.
Yeah, I think my taxes are too low right now. Let's increase the tax rate so the cops may be able to solve 1/3rd of
So which one of the Bloomberg Youth gets to die first trying to stick me with that needle?
Fuck you!
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
But having EVERY workplace carry out blood tests will no doubt increase the transmission of diseases that are carried in the blood between the populace as lazy empoyers use the same needle with only minor cleaning in different people to save time and money and/or are ignorant of the risks associated with re-using needles. Tatoo parlours are licenced and regularly inspected but you can't do this with every single workplace. Then there's cotton swabs in the mouth. Could most small work places really do this in a manner where there aren't contamination issues rendering the tests almost worthless?
DNA is a messy thing - it gets all over. Finger prints create quite a bit of litter themselves. So far, these two methods are the prevailing method of identification.
;)
But I wonder - would you mind if identification was verified via retinal scans? If you're doing something in a legally "grey" area you're libale to leave DNA and finger prints all over. However, retinal evidence would be non existant unless the "criminal" was completely ignorant and stuck his eye in a camera (or if technology vastly improves). It's nearly impossible to track.
See, with retinal scans privacy could be [mostly] preserved while identification for employment and government services would be possible and [mostly] secure.
I'd opt for anarchy myself but I see you sissies aren't up for that
The difference is now they DNA test suspects. In such a system we're all suspects. Er- you'd all be suspects. I plan on living as much of my life outside the USA as possible.
:x
"If people think it is a civil liberties issue, it is a civil liberties issue."
I'm sorry, I think you need to submit for re-education. The government has said it's not a civil liberties issue; what more proof do you need?
If anything, we should have learned from the disaster that the use of our social security number has become. It started out with a use that was extremely limited in scope, and has since become a nearly universal identifier for all kinds of information about us- all without our permission, and in many cases, our knowledge. The proliferation of its abuse is now why we're faced with issues like identity theft.
This point cannot be emphasized enough: once something like this becomes a problem, it's too late. Have you seen any "solution" to identity theft? Didn't think so. The only effective response is to slam the door closed on these kinds of ideas, and weld it shut.
With the recent stuff that is going on, all I have to say is this... I completely love the idea of a Country wide DNA Registry in which one could find anyone who was anywhere at any time. It is a whole lot less invasive then say implanting RFID tags which we saw at Defcon where one could read them up to 300 yards away line of sight, or requiring GPS locators to be imbedded into our cell phones so that we can be found in a moments notice in our daily lives anywhere on the planet only knowing our phone number, or imbedding special chips into our computers that would allow someone to track where a document was created or delete said document if it were determined to be a threat to national security, or listening to every phone conversation everywhere in order to determine if someone knows someone who may or may not know someone else whose uncle's wife's nephew's stepsister has ever ate at the same resturaunt as a terrorist. In the big scheme of things, this is a whole lot better than any of those ideas, and I only say that because every once in a while I hear an occasional clicking on my phone line. Go wild, I support you in every way. ---------- We will never forget 12/21/2012 ----------
Thirty four characters live here.
There's been a fingerprint database in existence for quite a few years now. The system is known as AFIS or Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
Each state or groups of states connects it AFIS system to the FBI and queries are done through III (Interstate Identification Index). Takes 20 minutes or less if previous positive contact was made with law enforcement.
Bloomberg assumes we're all criminals. We aren't. I'm against the collection of fingerprints or other biometric or biological information for the purpose of a wildcard criminal investigation.
I wonder, has the good mayor ever been fingerprinted? Or had his DNA logges into a database? I doubt it.
That doesn't hold water. It's easy to make someone a suspect now. Just make an anonymous phone call. "I saw so-and-so going into..."
The problem I've heard mentioned is that with any biological marker, as soon as someone figures out how to fake it you're screwed.
There's no need to fake the biometric data. Breaking into whatever machine hosts the database is quite sufficient.
If this system ever comes to pass, it would be a very appropriate countermeasure to make the DNA of every legislator who voted for it come up as a terrorist or sex offender.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
After my last visit to NYC, I would say this is SOP.
The problem we're having right now is that our government is intent upon restricting Rights. This story is a great example of that kind of "logic".
Instead, we need to focus more on the Constitution and show that their power-grabs do NOT conform to the very blatantly stated restricted powers of government.
Rather than try to ammend the Constitution (or pass laws) to protect each Right of the People, we need to demand that the Government show a Constitutional basis for each of their laws.
And looking through the Constitution, I don't see anything supporting the Government's desire to collect information on citizens who are NOT accused of any crime.
Until they amend the Constitution to include that, then they are NOT allowed to do so.
In October of last year, Sam Palmisano announced that IBM's policy was never to use genetic information as a basis for hiring or eligibility for health insurance. To me it seemed like a wacky announcement to make at the time, yet here we are less than a year later and it seems less crazy and more prescient.
Vonnegut: "What is the purpose of life? To be the eyes, ears, and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool."
When I see Big Brother-ish proposals like this I'm glad my employer is showing some decency and respect for privacy: http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/10/2005_10_11.h tml
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
Using DNA for such purposes is a severe violation of privacy. We're talking about our building blocks, our information that defines much of who we are, and a fair share of our offspring. This isn't simple identification, a fingerprint, or a social security card.
It has many uses for violent criminals and has helped in the identification of seemingly elusive killers. Is the general populace a pack of violent criminals now? I think not. This can only be abused.
Fun Zoid RPG
Over time doesn't DNA change? Mutations and viruses for a few reasons. For a crime investigation that ussaly isn't seperated by a lot of time this isn't a huge concern. But between 17 and 60?
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
You're heading well beyond the vision Orson Welles had in "1984". Time to bend over to the Illuminati. Any bets against that Michael Bloomberg is a Freemason?
Does this mean I can get cloned for free? That would be hot!
Actually it does hold water dumbass. Now: drop dna clues make anonymous tip. They have to round up the suspect and find enough (however little) corroborating evidence to get a dna test. If someone lies about where youve been and you have a solid alibi, it's obvious the tip was false. With this database: DNA is found, it IDs you, you are toast.
this will cause a lot of harm, think about this, you are in a sprting good store, you cough or scratch your head near a rack of wood baseball bats, then pick one up to see if it feels right, you put it back and leave ;1/2 hr later the bat is used to hold up the store and beat the clerk to a pulp...guess whos DnA is on the bat...
Bloomberg only ran as a Republican so as to avoid a crowded Democratic primary. He is in fact a lifelong Democrat, and his policies and views on most issues reflect that.
On behalf of hard-working, non-billionaire, non-fake Republicans everywhere, who practically all hate Bloomberg's proposal as much or more than you do, I would be delighted to accept an apology for your ill-informed and mean-spirited libel.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
I knew Hopkins was nuts (heck, they let me teach there), but now what will the privacy protected minions at the School of Public Health have to say about their patron putting together a public DNA database. Sounds like some hemming and hawing is going to happen on Wolfe Street.
The comment shows a remarkable lack of foresight. Any issue revolving around establishing and documenting identity is a civil liberties issue.
Let assume we began a database for every documented worker in the U.S. How long do you think it would take before that database started containing other tables for work history, education, credit scores and so forth? You only have to look at how the social security number has evolved to be used to establish identity beyond Social Security purposes to understand how this will be co-opted.
Which then brings us to the question: What would be the proper domain of this database? Besides its original purpose of establishing whether you are a documented worker, will it be tied to other issues and also contain your educational history, work history, social security information (which would give a sense of your salary history), previous employer commentary? Would it also include information on your health, DNA profile, etc.?
All of these things would be admittedly useful to companies making hiring decisions. However, it also rubs up against a citizen's privacy and could be used for a wide variety of things that have nothing to do with its original purpose and are obvious civil liberties issues.
Not that the original purpose is not a civil liberties issue. It's the same as being asked for "your papers" in Eastern Bloc countries back a few decades ago. It also could easily be used as a blacklist tool itself. "Oops, it looks like you do not appear on the documented worker list,we cannot hire you"..."the person you say you are is indicated as dead in our documented worker database, the police outside want to take you to the station to establish your real identity" (then, you are disappeared to some Gitmo prison). All of this is extreme, but it is one direction that it could possibly go when pushed far enough where there are clear civil liberties issues.
I think government has no business tracking its citizens. Government is responsible to its citizenry, not the other way around. Databases like these are government power grabs designed to exert more control over the population - and it fundamentally undermines our liberties.
And I mean that literally. I'm ready, are you? Im not suggesting open revolt or somesuch, I'm just saying that the slippery slope keeps getting steeper and steeper. At some point, we will hit the 'event horizon', where there is no going back. That time is coming sooner and sooner. Are you prepared?
Just say No!
JoloK
Bloomberg says: The difference is, in the day and age when everybody's got a PC on their desk with Photoshop that can replicate anything, it's become a joke.
So if the claim is just to give people an identity card that's harder to forge, why do you need DNA in the database? What's wrong with a photo?
Actually, why do you need a database at all? Just store a digital photo on the card, along with name and social security number, all digitally signed by a government official. Maybe you could even fit it on a magnetic stripe.
Very valid point: we're only getting what we ask for. If you live in New York, did you vote for Bloomberg? For Hillary? Then STFU. We don't need your opinion -- we already have to live with it.
The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database since our fingerprints are all unique, shouldn't we just use those? Helllooooo Gattaca
So what if it is murder and rape? It is still a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent.That depends upon how they do it. But, on average, it costs about $500 per DNA sample.
So
200,000,000 x $500 = $100,000,000,000
$100 BILLION.What the fuck?!?
I don't care how "doable" it is. I don't care how "automated" it is. There is the cost associated with the processing of the samples and the LOGISTICS of getting every adult in the US processed.
So the $100 BILLION is just the STARTING POINT.
Fuck your stupid Fascist idea.
There is no such thing as Total Law Enforcement. In a Free society, sometimes the bad guys get away. It's part of the risk of being Free.
You're more at risk of dying from a car crash than you are from being raped and murdered.
You're more at risk of being murdered by a family member than by a stranger.
Of course, trying to explain the concept of Freedom to a Fascist is never going to work. It's not about money or Freedom to you, is it? It's about tracking each and every person.
Fuck you.
When we withheld due process from the VERY FIRST PERSON, we became EXACTLY as bad and evil as and Nazi.
The ONLY differences being methods and bodycount.
To the person tied to a chair and beaten to death, or marched into the gas chamber, it doesn't matter that "there's only one"...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
This coming from someone of Jewish descent is flabbergasting. This makes me wonder if it is true that politics makes you FUCKING RETARDED.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg can go and fuck himself!!!
What would be really interesting is if this actually went through, (not that I condone it) they would be able to create a 100% Geneology Hierarchy. They would know absolutely who is related to who. That in itself would be a pretty interesting thing to see.
Which means it is already a civil liberties issue because the government cannot be trusted not to use secretly used it.
Bingo!
...
... and ... linking that person's body (via tattoos or DNA or fingerprints) to any government authorization.
Although there isn't much real difference between issuing someone a Social Security card and tattooing that number upon his body
Yeah, almost everyone can see the difference between issueing a card with a number to a person
Almost everyone. Fascism is a state of mind. It is when you value people's Freedom less than the perceived "efficiency" of your Government.
The government serves the People.
The People do not serve the Government.
Usually at the bank I give them my social security number and they find my account from that. I make a deposit and they incidentally give me my balance.
My photo will feature a great big Groucho Marx mustache and a Bozo wig. And I will supply a DNA sample ... from my cat.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
I won't work.
I'm gonna go ahead and send the mayor my "DNA sample" right now. Hope he wasn't hopeing for diploids...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
At least in a limited sense it does. For the US Military, during training, one of the first things that happens is a sample of blood is taken and firgerprints are put in ink. Now, while this isn't used for identifying illegals (it is mainly used for identification in the rare instance when they can't identify us by anything more than giblets and blood), if needed, it could be used as a basis for if such is ever implemented.
Meow what do we have here?
If it only affected politicians, it wouldn't be so much a problem. The real problem is that too many people are willing to go along with it.
English is easier said than done.
They DO realize it.
It's the princple of: Tell a lie loud enough, often enough and long enough and the people will eventually believe it to be true."
Most people believe the Patriot Act is necessary and constitutional. Why should they not buy this new lie? It pisses me off that even many small-government conservatives believe that limiting rights in exchange for a vague promise of safety is necessary, let alone even remotely acceptable.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I work for a large county library system - it takes a committee to decide what sort of toilet paper to buy. And in the meantime we're ripping up old reader's digest condensed books to get through the coming months, because we know that when they do decide on the generic Charmin, it'll be right after a budget freeze takes effect, and no orders will be placed till the next fiscal year.
Bleh. Fecking politicos.
The real choice is liberty versus control. -- Bruce Schneier
Bloomberg is an idiot whose sense of self-importance, arrogance, and self-righteousness knows no bounds. His "investigation" of out-of-state gun dealers is clearly indicative of Bloomberg's cluelessness when it comes to individual and states rights. My prediction is that he will be outed as the idiot he is, and this lame-brained idea of a DNA database will find its rightful place in the annals of history as the pipedream of a seriously-whacked mind.
If I were a citizen of NYC, I'd be hanging my head in embarrassment just about now.
This seems like a really bad idea for reasons beyond civil liberties and privacy.
When did the US change from one of the most liberal (in the European sense of the word) countries where everything was possible and where everyone was welcome to seek his her own happines, into a totalitarial state of control ?
Yep, typical Fascist behaviour.
And then you continue on about how it won't be so expensive because it will magically get cheaper as you index more people.
What was was it that you had previously said?Again, taxes WOULD go up. Whether you want to argue the numbers or not, taxes WOULD go up.
So, taxes go up
What was that that you said earlier?No, your Fascist nature will not allow you to see the downside.
You think that this would be a good idea because it suits your Fascist nature. Despite the costs. Despite the logistics of indexing 200 million adults. Despite the Freedom issues.
The problem lies within you.
It is your outlook that is flawed and that is the reason you cannot understand what you are being told.
In New York, attacking an employee of the government (Bloomberg may indeed qualifty) is a greater crime than attacking a regular citizen. All other things being equal, this could be as much a difference of 3 1/2 years for the latter and 7 years for the former.
All people are equal. Some are more equal than others.
Here's his Op-Ed piece on immigration from Wednesday's Wall Stret Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110008420
I read the article when it came out and overall I found it pretty reasonable and full of some good ideas.
I don't think it's a good idea to have a DNA/fingerprint database is a great idea, but the problem he was trying to solve by suggesting it -- easily falsifiable social security cards -- is an important one.
Not counting the DNA part, all legal aliens here in the US already have the "pleasure" to have their fingerprints in such a database:
- if you are entering on a non-work or temporary working visa you will have to leave two of your fingerprints at the point of entry (the program is called US VISIT and was incorporated about 1/1/2004) - every time you enter
- if you are a permanent resident, you will give them all ten of your fingerprints - one of them is even displayed on your Green Card (and yes, I know that probably no employer will ever check for a match here...)
I guess the smarter way of going about this would be to either create tamper-proof SSN cards (the Green Cards a very impressive and I think it would be very hard to fake one) or ID cards (just with your name in pic - shouldn't be that much different from a driver's license)
Not sure about other states but I believe that you will have to give one fingerprint in order to receive a driving license...
Why don't they just catalogue and track the illegals? That would be far easier.
Have you seen any "solution" to identity theft?
Step 1: Impale heads of government leaders on stakes. Step 2: Repeal Social Security Act. Step 3: Profit.
My home is supposed to be private from improper government entry, according to the US Constitution. My body should be included private, under the same provisions. Herr Bloomberg and King George might not think so, but their conveniences and contrivances don't determine our unalienable rights---though many of those rights have already been tweaked. Does anyone in this country believe in privacy and democracy anymore? I'm really fed up with being protected from myself at my own expense. I want protection from these governing hacks.
Welcome to Gattaca
insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue.
Wait a second. If a national database with the DNA of everyone working in the US, used to track their movements, is not an invasion of privacy or a civil liberties issue... I'm a little hard pressed to think of what is! Implanted GPS trackers? Mandatory video surveillance of everyone's bedrooms?
Quick! All /.ers hurry and load up on stocks in biotech companies, especially people who make PCR machines and whatnot. If everyone down in the states has to start having their DNA analyzed to get a job, it'll mean loads more revenue for these companies. I'm thinking some people(me! :O) are going to get rich on this :P
I'm really twisted up on this subject. On the one hand, having almost bulletproof ID is becoming more and more needed due to identity theft. At the same time the desire to be anonymous and ensure privacy is also something I want to keep.
What can somebody do to REALLY prove they are who they say they are? X.509/PGP + Web of Trust?
Can you combine Biometrics with digital certs? Should we?
All your DNA are belong to U.S.
Every one who hasn't read Orwell's 1984, please do so now. Still is scary. Such a database is just an accident in the waiting. I would like to run some queries on the beast.
My point:
There are other ways to keep out illegal workers. The problems aren't the workers, the employers are. Those business keep hiring illegal immigrants. Driven by low salaries. And higher profits. And the consumers have to realise low prices in the shops, mean low salaries for the people making those products.
Start with pulling back the 6000 national guards from the mexican borders and let them just check on the workfloor. See who has legal documents and who hasn't. I don't buy it when he says it's hard to spot a fake id. Then give the employers ridiculous high fines. I know places where it can cost an employer up to 5000 euros for one illegal worker.
"We are sorry it has come to our attention that due to your genetic makeup you will likely choose to play solitaire on the job in the future. To save us time and effort; you are being fired for future failure to perform all duties."
Mayor Of New York, Michael Bloomberg
It is only a matter of time before the government is on to your new bomb which is activated when placed inside the anus of a prepubescent teen.
I think it is. And also hiding all information behind one (social security whatever number you have) is not very safe. You can start getting snail-mail spam after you using that number, or credit card. I heard it happens often.
Pixel image editor - http://www.kanzelsberger.com
...coming up with an idea that would be a step on the road that will turn u.s. people into slave labor.
But they are only returning americans to the "traditional" values that made their country great.
May the Maths Be with you!
I see this as a women's rights issue, in addition to the obvious 'they looked at our DNA!' complaint.
No employer is ever going to just take a single hair or a few skin scrapings. They're going to want blood, and more than just a finger prick. If they do that before getting back to you with a decision, they could be screening for, say... PREGNANCY. SSRI's. Who knows what.
Even if the system were perfect it would give employers a blank check to perform unwelcome and illegal tests on job applicants. And that just ain't cool.
insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue.
Well, of course he's absolutely correct. It's not a civil liberties issue...
FOR HIM.
Whether it's an issue for ordinary citizens isn't really important I guess since we keep re-electing this clowns.
Oh course Koresh and Weaver didn't succeed. They had less guns than their opposition. Revolution only works when everyone helps out.
your opposition has clusterbombs and cruise missiles.
sum.zero
Watch Waco: The Rules of Engagement and Waco: A New Revelation.
In Soviet Russia DNA database tracks legal workers.
Oh wait...
With the increasing work on the Human Genome Project and A database for the purpose of "verifying legality of workers" (assuming the DNA viriatey), how long until some company decides to write their own little app and start to base some of their hiring practacies on Genotypes...
It just reminds me of the movie GATTACA [wikipedia.org]
4th amendment? Try Article I, Section 8 of the unamended version ...
...
Congress has a right to
to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
*Our* elected government has the right and duty to due this.
Actually, power lies with guns (as it always has), whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive that it is the Duty of the People to alter or abolish it.
You're an idiot, and this is just an assaninely stupid statement.
What you seem to have missed out on is that in 1776, the guns the populace had and the guns the government had were the same, so the side that won was pretty much based on how many people you had, influenced by your ability to pay them, and their emotional/economic investment in the fight.
In modern day resistence, guns are so useless that they're only used against extremely poor governments. You might be able to stage a revolution in the Congo with guns, hell, you can even do it with enough people and some machetes, but there is just no way that you can keep a government like the US government honest with the treat of a firearm. The government is not threatened by a firearm - it is useless against their tank, and it is especially useless after the government has blown up your car.
Iraqi insurgents have guns. IRA had guns. Hamas has guns. What do these groups do with guns? They try to AVOID using them, because when they make use guns they are visible, and when they are visible people can drop a bomb on them. A gun is useless when your enemy is just going to send a missile into your apartment if they know where you are. They know that guns don't work, which is why they use bombs. Look at the number of Americans killed in Iraq by IED vs. firearm.
Even with bombs, you're not going to get what you want; all you succeed at doing is creating an environment of poor security, which leads to a poor economy. Even in a poor economy, the government is still better off than the populace. Once you've let the government get out of hand, it's too late: The best you can do is make your economy so bad that your government becomes militarily weak enough that they provoke someone to come and invade you.
There's a name for places like that: Bosnia.
Americans must VIGILENTLY protect and excercise their democratic rights to keep the government honest. If it comes time to use guns, we're fucked.
paintball
Bloomberg is showing his age here. He was correct that if you don't work you do not have a Social Security Card.
However, today, and SSN (and it's associated Card) is issued at birth. From this trite examples, it seem plausible that what ever identifier that is used will be expanded to the general population. Some other poster had said this: "We should not examine how a security protocal will work, but how it will fail." And that, is the problem.
*Sigh*, and now you go and do this.
I don't understand why all the comments are so outraged.
/. but when you are processed by law enforcement, fingerprints are collected. Guess what? Those fingerprints (millions of them in large systems) are kept on computers and they do all kinds of fantastic things with them.
It seems that many people believe they have *some* privacy.
Well, you don't. You haven't for quite some time. There is a giant industry that knows pretty much everything about you and is quite profitable too. Now, the point was made, "What happens when a video of you and your SO in your house doing something embarassing is all over the Internet?" Does that change your opinion. No. Like most things, it will be forgotten as quickly as it appeared.
Now, about "the database" everyone fears. There are decades of development in large-scale AFIS. I don't know how many criminals frequent
A few DMV's collect fingerprints. So they can handle the volume no problem.
So, they take existing law-enforcement AFIS systems, award a fat contract for a job that could be done for 1/2 the price to scale up existing AFIS databases.
5 years later after a few poorly managed implementations, fraudulent contracting and general inefficiency, the uber-database is ready!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Good luck with that.
Gattaca wasn't about a government that wanted bad things for defective people. It was about what happens to a society that only wants the best (a society we have now), when 'best' is believed to be easily determined by genetic identification. It's not that I want something bad for the 'defective people', I just selfishly would prefer to hire/associate with/marry non-defective people.
If employment eligibility tracking is based on genetic profile, how long is it before employers can buy products that tell them if their potential employees have, say, health problems that will raise their health insurance premiums?
paintball
One solution to identity theft would be a more robust means of identity.
Numbers that are spread around widely can easily be faked; adding a passkey to be paired with every SSN would not be spread around much, and companies using the SSN could be made liable 1000x for any misuse, if they failed to verify every use of the SSN using the passkey for new accounts, or another strong method of verification, for existing accounts.
Basically, you have a national database, pairing a PASSKEY or biometric data with every SSN; to take out a loan or such, you not only provide the SSN, but you have to have a thumbprint scanned and verified against the record, or provide a passkey, and that helps reduce the possibilities of ID theft.
Then you require a passphrase established with the account be provided upon every transaction, and permit it to be changed, but only with another verification of the SSN.
Faking an individual's biometrics should be much harder than faking any number.. A national database pairing the SSNs with these codes or biometrics, need NOT make them accessible, all they have to do is require the user of the VERIFYING service provide the information in some well-defined encrypted form, like a hash of a timestamp and the key or biometric presented, and the only answer will be "YES; Verified" or "No; Rejected"
A passkey would be second best... I.E. The SSN should be paired with an 8-character alphanumeric SSN "passkey"; which...
Whats the difference between this and shackles? Sure the shackles chaif more, but the principle's the same.
Because you can - or because you should?
... I'd simply have to take my identical twin brother's ID card.
You realize this is exactly the sort of thing we've been decrying for this whole article?
I'm wondering what makes this a bad idea and what makes it a civil liberties issue? It sounds like a good idea to me. With identity theft running rampant, something needs to be done to make personal information more secure and a bit more tied to a person. Paperwork alone isn't likely to accomplish this. Including genetic information with personal information just sounds like a good idea. The only people it will hurt is those trying to break the law by faking their identity. Law abiding citizens can already be identified through other means such as a drivers license or social security card. Adding genetic evidence just means there aren't two other me's out there. Or, the bigger problem, two people out there who came into this country illegally and have now stolen my daughter's identity in order to have a SSN they can use for a job. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm asking seriously - how is the plan a bad one?
I love my sig.
Given that politicians have the power to enact this measure into law, I think it's far more important than we track and verify all legal U.S. politicians. What if an illegal politician was to sneak in to the legislature and vote on a bill? What if a politician was to vote on a bill while inebriated or stoned? We need a piss test for politicians.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
screen...
Think "Smoke Screen".)
The US has already gotten (current) "allies" --Japan in particular-- to "get in line..." with fingerprinting inbound visitors, even those just passing through a country and not requiring a debarkation.
Now, if the DNA database gets run by the senate/Romans, the Congress (opposite of PROGress) and others, then the US will say, "We need to ensure that ALL people traveling by plane, train, cruise liner... hell, even by YACHT for that matter, has to supply a DNA sample to the Customs, Immigration, DOT, and other agencies or to a common escrow (government-appointed/bid-awarded) entity.
I suppose it's a secret pathway to genealogy and "gene pool cleanup" for future purposes...
Next up: "Cops and Teachers are required to provide DNA...even BEFORE being sworn in" (Yep, in case you didn't know, teachers have to take an oath the the prez....Yep, IN the USA)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Doesn't matter. A robust method of identification is still 100x more effective than the status quo: the SSN, a non-robust method of identification used as if it WERE a robust one. In terms of preventing identity theft.
And the SSN will always be used, and it will always be a poor method of identification susceptible to dentity theft, unless a better system, actually designed for what it's being used for replaces it, and verification under that system becomes mandatory whenever the SSN would be used in the past.
There already is already a national database, and there already is an identification for workers (the SSN). The trouble is, criminals can pretend to be someone else, and use that person's good name.
d) A voting system has to be used which discourages (or at least fails to encourage) voting for a candidate you do not like at the expense of one that you do (i.e., tactical voting).
It doesn't matter if everyone votes if the voting system is still First Past the Post--the voting system is too horribly flawed.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
when they ask for or implement these things. Its easy, here is how its done.
"We need your social security number for the Block Buster account."
reply "FUCK YOU"
or "We need you to pee in this cup as a condition of emplyment."
reply "FUCK YOU"
Your walking down the street minding you own business and a cop says "I need to see some ID"
reply "FUCK YOU, you NAZI bastard"
Instead of just laying down and complying with this bullshit when it is implemented, people need to exoercise there rights, every day.
Those sons of bitches work for us, not the other way around. Part of the problem is they refer to themselves as leaders, but that is not how it is supposed to be. They are servants to the populace.
You are not servants to the polictical machine. Stop voting for politicians, if they want the job so bad then they dont deserve it. Make them work for us.
Well its already been implemented. Just on the state level. Almost every state in the union has changed the ID/Drivers licsense cards to match with the national ID standard.
Is he getting lobbied by genetics companies who want to mine the data when the government sells them the data? I don't want to fucking live in Gattaca.
That's it. That's enough.
You are not authorized to have that stuff. That stuff is ours, and you cannot have it, you did not earn it like we did.
So I'm going to create a list. An Authorized List. You will not be on it. Only Authorized People will be on this list.
The List will be long, perhaps in the tens of millions. But it will be correct. Authorized People may be born, move, marry, dissapear, or die by the thousands every day, but this list will at all times be Accurate and Authoritative.
I'll create a second List, a List of People Authorized to view the Authorized List. No one of the People Authorized will misuse, abuse, mislay, misconstrue, mistake, or mess with the Authorized List. I promise.
There are many such lists, but they will not be Authoritative. They are not safe. They are not secure. Mine will be, becuase I thought of it.
But most of all, you will not be on my List, becuase you have things I don't think you should have.
Like a job.
Hate to be the devil's advocate, but they are talking about DNA fingerprinting, which does not necessarily mean that they will be legally allowed to examine the entire genetic makeup of a DNA sample to determine health status, etc. Think of it in PGP encryption terms - you provide a public key to identify yourself, which is then verified against a hash attached to each email. However, the verifier never gets to see your private key which created both the public key and the hash. Obviously this doesn't translate word-for-word to DNA fingerprinting. But I'm sure there's some small specific sequence of genes in everyone that is wholly unique. Thus the database would only identify you by that uncopyable sequence, and would only ever need to store that specific sequence. Obviously, if they have your DNA, they can technically get all sequences, including those that tell whether your prone to breast cancer (for example). But in the pursuit of civil liberty and freedom, sequencing someone's entire genetic makeup can and hopefully will be made illegal.
Iraqi insurgents HAVE guns. They have PILES of guns. They *CHOOSE* not to use them because they ARE NOT EFFECTIVE.
The insurgents would be doing us a HUGE FAVOR if they started using guns. Why? Because then we would know who the insurgents were - they're the guys shooting at us - and we'd know where they are - in the building the bullets are coming from! Then we just drop a bomb on the building, problem solved.
Instead, the insurgents avoid using guns and instead use bombs. Why? Because when a bomb kills your troops, the bomb doesn't tell you who or where the insurgent is.
That's the problem with you gun nuts - you have absolutely no concept of tactics. You think that "Oo, I can shoot the other guy, I win!" The other guy is thinking "Oo, I can drop a bomb on the other guy, I win!" and HE is right.
Insurgents in Iraq are not causing all this damage DESPITE not using guns, they're causing it BECAUSE they don't use guns.
The insurgents who thought they could fight the US with guns are already dead. Only the insurgents who use bombs are left, because they're never around to be killed.
paintball
this becomes extraordinarily difficult if the government doesn't know who the "bad guys" specifically are.
That's the whole problem. The government that takes away the rights of actual bad guys is not the problem. The problem is that the BAD GUYS ARE WHOEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY ARE! So once you let the government take away the rights of the bad guys, you've let the government take away your rights - all they have to do is declare you to be a bad guy. The soldier who comes to get you isn't going to know if you're an actual bad guy or just somebody the government doesn't like.
It USED to be that if that happened, you'd get to go to court and if the government was full of it you could plead your case and probably be released. But we're chipping away at that - we've allowed the government to decide you are a bad guy, then wisk you away to some secret detention facility. Then you are, indeed, fucked.
paintball
COOOL!!!!
Amendments take precedence over the unamended version.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Why bother registering, just stay (and work) here illegally until congress grants amnesty. It has worked the last 2 times.
P.S. don't forget to take advantage of the free food, health, social and education programs while you are here.
That is obvioulsy why the IRA owned South Armagh and even the police had to be flown in and could not use the roads for safety, even garbage had to be flown out by helicopter from the bases (until the SAS came in and played them at their own game with their underhanded tactics). Get your facts right. Terrorists did a HUGE amount of damage to the UK government and over a LONG period of time. The UK Government had no chance against the populance that dispised them so much.
And? I said that guns are useless for defending yourself from the government. You havn't presented anything against that.
All you've said is that terrorists can cause a lot of damage. So? What's that got to do with guns? Terrorists who cause the most damage don't even use guns! They use fertilizer, box cutters, improvised artillery shells, and airplanes. And for all the damage the IRA did, all they managed to do was hurt the economy where they lived. All of their efforts did nothing but hurt themselves. Pretty stupid, isn't it?
paintball
1) the goverment is already mining both private and public databases
2) the goverment is already listening to all your phone conversations
3) the goverment is already reading all of your email
4) the goverment is already removing your civil rights
5) the goverment is already issuing goverment contracts based on political affiliations
6) the goverment is already about to issue a national id card that you won't be able to travel a public mode of transportation without
7) the goverment is already just an arm of the top 1/2 of 1% of the american earners
currently the goverment can;
a. hold you in prison without due process
b. deny you access to a lawyer
c. hold you in secret
d. issue search and arrest warrents via a secret court
e. torture you till you give them the information they seek
f. remove from this country and hold you on forgeign soils
So welcome Comrade Bushkie and just when you thought it was almost over they march out Jeb Bush!!!!
If your not breaking the law, then why care if someone puts a camera in every room of your house and monitors your conversations and activities?
I also think this should be tied into a system so that if you for instance purchased alcohol, your medical insurance and life insurance would automatically cost more per drink you have.
Eventually I hope our government implants explosives into our heads so that they can snuff the opposition or any law violators.
Must I remind you that service in the military is voluntary and you essentially tell the government that you'll do whatever it wants you to do. So this ridiculous argument that the politicians should sign their kids up is tired and pointless. Ugh, I'm so tired of people who are unhappy with a situation making stupid remarks like this one in an effort to make some kind of "intelligent point".
A national database pairing the SSNs with these codes or biometrics, need NOT make them accessible
It doesn't matter...once an entity has the information, it's out of your control, and that's exactly what we need to prevent.
If I'm not mistaken, Steve Gibson, in one of his recent podcasts talked about a very easy (and effective) way to offer the verification they (government) *say* biometrics will provide, without giving away the farm.
The reason that we are faced with so much "indentity theft" is that banks and credit companies are using SSN as id even though it was never supose to be used that way. My social security card specifically says that it is not to be used as ID. When I went to college it was my student number. Other countries have an immigration status for americans inflicted with identity theft because the social security office does not consider it a problem and won't issue a clean number. Your only choice is to move out of the country. I do not look kindly to any invasion by the goverment that is just as safe as social security numbers.
Good points. In a modern society some form of a universal identifier is necessary. If you apply for credit, the bank needs to check your credit record to make sure you aren't a dead beat. When you pay your taxes, the government has to match up your taxes with the employer's W2. The problem isn't that we have a unique identifier and the government is going to use it to suppress us. The problem is someone can steal it. A passkey along with a SSN would help to solve the problem. Some people would still write their passkey on their social security card, but some people will always be beyond help.
What part of:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you not understand? All of the above is a longer way of staying you have a right to privacy from government intrusion.
You couldn't be more wrong if you were president. The majority of American casualties and deaths in Iraq are due to firearms. The idea that firearms are ineffective is, much like you, beyond stupid.
Hrm, wouldn't it be wonderful if somebody kept track of the causes of troop fatalities in Iraq? Then we could tell which one of us is really stupid. But wait! SOMEBODY DOES KEEP TRACK!
Top 10 causes of troop fatalities in Iraq, March 2003->May 2006:
Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack 863 - 32.1%
Hostile - hostile fire 389 - 14.5%
Non-hostile - vehicle accident 215 - 8%
Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire 154 - 5.7%
Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb 101 - 3.8%
Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack 89 - 3.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack 78 - 2.9%
Non-hostile - helicopter crash 78 - 2.9%
Hostile - helicopter crash 66 - 2.5%
Hostile - hostile fire - ambush 60 - 2.2%
That includes the start of the war though. If you look at the past three months (March->May):
IED/Car Bomb/Explosion/Helicopter/missile: 119
Non-specied hotile fire/small arms fire: 37
That counts unspecified hostile fire (which could be anything) in the 2nd category, as I would guess it's more likely that actual IED casualties are classified as IED deaths than just hostile fire deaths while gunfire is more likely to just get lumped into hostile fire.
36.4% of all fatalities (combat AND non-combat fatalities) in Iraq since March 2003 were caused by IED. In the past three months, over half of *ALL* troop fatalities (99 out of 183) have been caused by IED. If you take out the non-com deaths, 63% of combat deaths are by IED alone.
The longer the war has gone on, the more insurgents have been relying on IED's. Why? Because the insurgents who use guns are dead. That's the tactical environment in Iraq: Use your gun to kill a few US troops before you get killed, or use your IED to kill more troops and do it again later.
Source:
http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx
paintball
would these be the same people that were guards at abu ghraib? or that are patroling gitmo? or murdered iraqi civilians execution style? and so on...
sum.zero
legally allowed
Thats right up there with the government not spying on americans, not spying on domestic phone calls, etc...
Yeahhhhh, I'll have to get back to you on that. In the mean time, please jack of into this cup. I promise not to pour it on my next rape victim.
Soooooo, to keep guest workers out, it is proposed to put all Americans in jail?
Sigh...
Oh well, what the hell...
but there seem to be plenty of oppressive regimes in place in countries where the civilians are even better armed than in the usa. and there will always be those that like the new direction or who pander to the interests of higher powers in order to curry favour.
sum.zero
A poor economy is one of the historically great motivators for revolution. If the government cannot feed the army, it will collapse.
And what happens AFTER the revolution? This is how we got the Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, North Korea. Resistence made the economy bad enough that they overthrew the government. Once in power, the resistence turned into the oppressor - they were the only guys left with guns, so all the guys with guns decided to devote all of the rest of the economy to feeding themselves.
They stay in power because by the time the government can't feed the army, the populace is dead. The soldiers are the LAST people to go without food.
Who gets the food in Somalia? The militias. Who gets the food in North Korea? The Army. Who gets the food in Sudan? Government military, and militias.
A poor economy is the best weapon an oppressive government has. You want to make sure the soldiers in your army are willing to commit atrocities on your behalf? Make sure the alternative to doing what you want in the army is starving.
paintball
We don't even yet know if fingerprints are unique as nobody has performed the large scale experiments.
Only an idiot believes that we can maintain our economy without foreign workers, but since we don't let enough workers in legally, illegals come in to fill the jobs. Employers hire the illegals because they can pay them in cash (no workers comp, health insurance, no tax withholdings, etc.), and the probability of legal repercussions is low. So, if we adopt a method to identify those who can legally work that cannot be counterfeited, we would still need to raise the consequences for employers who hire undocumented workers and prosecute them. Otherwise, those that do so now will continue doing it for reasons of economic gain. If we are going to identify legal workers and enforce the law, we will also need to allow enough people in to fill the available jobs. I am in favor of some kind of guest worker program, but I am against giving those living illegally in the United States automatic amnesty and documentation. To do so would be giving preference to those who choose to break our laws. Documentation should be available to non-residents only outside of the United States. Let prospective guest workers apply in their homelands. If people living illegally in the US want documentation, then they should go back to their homeland and compete for what is available with their countrymen.
On behalf of hard-working, non-billionaire, non-fake Republicans everywhere....
Don't take offense. The people you've mentioned cannot be properly described as modern Republicans. I've heard them called "classical conservatives", "true conservatives", "RINOs", and even "liberals", but never Republicans.
The most immediate result would be the health insurance industry lobbying to have access to that data. Say goodbye to affordable health coverage if you're predisposed to any of the easy to spot DNA indicators for disease. This assumes that they're keeping a DNA sample versus a DNA signature, as a signature would be less Gattaca-like, but still scary.
To be heard in the not so distant future: "Happy Birthday! Our records show that you are now in the high risk category for the following illnesses, and your monthly statement has increased respectively." If DNA databases start to take root, the only way to avoid people from being denied coverage (or charged so much that it ends up acting like the same thing) is to nationalize it.
[end orwellian rant]
Success, at least as the OP asserted, was defending oneself from the government. Bombs and guns are not going to keep the government in line. If you want to change the definition of success to "kill a lot of people", then bombs and guns work very well.
But all that is going to accomplish is turn your country into a shithole.
paintball
automatic sequencing has gotten far cheaper in recent years.
I certainly hope so - sequencing a composite human genome took 2 decades. Besides, even if it only costs me 10 bucks on my tax return, I don't want it - it just makes the government a little bigger, a little more bureaucratic, a little more powerful.
ResidntGeek
for no apparent reason, that these are not the droids you're looking for.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Tribble found in river near Omaha, NE
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12889759/
I would be most concerned in the data that actually lies in my DNA - I certainly do not want ANYBODY to have access to my genetic material, not matter what.
A database of fingerprints cannot tell you much on which ethnicity the person is or exactly who he is related to. The problem is that somehow this can be sold as a great way to stop the terrorists (or whoever we are afraid of at that point)
A possible solution would be to not keep a database of DNA-samples, but rather of generated hash-values, based on the DNA of a person. (But then again, who can guarantee that the don't just store the actual DNA - you can't even question that anymore with the Patriot Act, can you?)
Bad times...
Imagine what Americans could do if they understood how their masters screw them.
as long as it's only foreigners...*
and are you sure there are no american citizens in gitmo? do americans with off-white skin not count? what about that extraordinary rendition program? no americans netted by that? are you sure?
sum.zero
*sarcasm
....doesn't mean it's got a chance in hell of happening.
At ease, everyone.
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
You're a "hater". That was a "hate crime".
from ever getting votes from anyone here on slashdot, eh?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
It'll use the one youve already got... Thanks, *blip* next in line!
" insisting that such a system would not violate citizens' privacy and was not a civil liberties issue"
Perhaps the US gov't has a different definition of privacy and liberties than the rest of us. Cuz this is a textbook example of violating citizens' privacy and civil liberties to me.
Which is the one (and only) reason why no democracy's army should be 100% professionnal. It ought to be at least made up of 50% drafties. They can say whatever they wish about duty to protect one's country to justify the draft, the truth of the matter is that it's the only way to make sure the army doesn't become the tool of some against everybody else. If it comes to having to fight against your own army, you're screwed.
What do you mean, "what remained of them"?
The Taliban is still a strong presence in Afghanistan, they're far from being defeated. They're not running the _entire_ country anymore, but they're certainly not gone. The troops still there are trying to build up an infrastructure while defeating the Taliban, and it's not going all that hot. It's NATO troops there now, by the way. This really should be common knowledge - I know Iraq is the "in" country right now, but that certainly doesn't mean Afghanistan's done with.
~ Leilah
I see this mistake time and time again. Democracy is in no way equivalent to freedom. The founding fathers of the united states knew this, that's why they added the bill of rights to the constitution. If everyone in the country votes to send you to prison, are you free? Of course not, but that can happen in a democracy (need I remind you that the Japanese internment, and the NAZI internment for that matter where carried out under a democratic process?).
Clearly a more participatory democracy is not what is needed to ensure a more free society. If anything, a more participatory democracy would lead to less freedom, since it would give less voice to business leaders who often promote economic freedom out of their own self interest. Sometimes I wonder if democracy was a good idea at all. The only purpose it seems to serve is to grant "legitimacy" to government, which is a nice way of saying that it makes people think their government represents them when it really doesn't. Worse still, when the public does have an influence it is almost always bad. Public opinion is as stable as a blade of grass in the wind, and has never been a basis for forming good long term policy. While the individuals voting may be well informed and thoughtful, their votes in aggregate often make for fickle,ineffective, and inconsistent policy.
The solution is not more representation in government, but less government and less governmental authority. The more decisions are made through the mutual consent of individuals, the more freedom we all have.
Tell That to Mohammed and Malvo. With just one rifle, they had a large area pretty well scared to venture out. Yes, fighting the U.S. government on the battlefield out in open is a sure way of losing a guerilla war. With the effectively unlimited resources that the U.S. government possesses, it will keep sending in these resouces until the opposition is crushed. A better way is to come up with a plan to strike and disappear before a responce can be mustered.
When cowards and tyrants lead militarily powerful governments, they leave open a soft underbelly. Well placed shots in several power substations at the same time during peak power usage is one way of achieving chaos and putting a nation into darkness. So are roadside bombs, etc. Three pieces of copper cable section bent in a hook shape and bound or clamped together is another way to make sparks fly. Also sugar in petrol, iron fillings (salt water or cola) in computers, glue in locks, clipped phone wires, virused computers, and sticks jammed in air conditioning vents and many other things are a good way to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Many houshold items can be turned into weapons of mass destruction. Yes, guns are an important and powerful weapon, but the most important and most powerful weapon is the human mind. The human mind can help make any object into some form of weapon.
Americans are one of the most enslaved people in the world because they have been brainwashed into thinking they are free. Most Americans (even those who hate the system) are totally dependent on the American government-corporate alliance. A large majority of Americans have no idea on how to get food outside of visiting the local Safeway or other grocery store. The same goes for water and other life's necessities. To say that depending on one's enemy for sustainence is a dangerous proposition is an under statement. People who want a new government should learn how to grow food and obtain water independently of the the government they wish to get rid of.
I'm I suggesting that we take up arms and overthrow the government? No I am not. However, A well armed and well informed (more importantly) citizenry can force the government into a position of servitude where it belongs. The problem of overthrowing the government here in the Police States of America is not guns or the lack of other weapons, but rather people who have become fat and satisifed with all of the rich toys. As long as peoples minds remain blown by Playstation, sitcoms, MTV and the rest of the cahnnels on the telly, American minds will not be on improving the situation in their country. People in Eastern Europe succeeded in overthrowing their governments by simply not paying attention to the rulers and doing what they wanted. Will 5 soldiers fire on a mob of 1000 people if they know what is good for them? I doubt it.
The government of the Police States of Amerika is like it is because people in America like being screwed by politicians. If they did not like being screwed by politicians, then they would vote for candidates from alternative parties that have not been corrupted by special interests. If honest people were elected, they would soon be voted out of office when they are unable to bring enough pork to their home districts. When someone is elected to COngress, they have to either go along with the corruption, or none of their bills will get passed. Iw ould prefer the latter option, because as each election cycle comes along, more old timers can be voted out of office. Unfortunately, this will not happen because Americans do not have the guts or sense to do what is right for them and their country by making sacrifices to rebuild a Constitutional governent.
The only effective response is to slam the door closed on these kinds of ideas, and weld it shut.
The founders tried that. Human nature is a pretty good solvent, and occasionally a torch.
The most effective form of resistance or revolt does not involve guns and it doesn't even involve violence. Simple do not do what is asked of you. If you are willing to fight back with weapons or with violence then you should be willing to not acquiesce by simply not doing what the government asks of you. Don't join the military, don't pay your taxes, don't get a universal ID, don't give your biometric information/don't give a DNA sample, etc. (Surely you can come up with a list on your own of things you can refuse to do that would have a profound effect on the government's ability to rule.) Are there consequences to these non-actions? Yes. But, so there are consequences to picking up a weapon. The government gets away with the things it does because its citizens acquiesce to its demands. Quietly revolting has the ability to cause as much change (maybe more) as violently revolting. But, it also gives you a moral high-ground to stand on. Your crime would be one of doing nothing. How many people can the govenment throw in jail before its power is rendered ineffective in the context of masses of people unwilling to do what it commands?
What, and get banished to Staten Island for a decade?
There are some fates worse than death my friend.
This
Just take a look at the architects of the Iraqi invasion and it's biggest backers - all people that did not serve in the military (many took multiple deferments such as Cheney) and do not have family members serving in Iraq.
If Bush, Cheney, Rummsfield and GOP leaders in Congress all had sons or daughters in the service who would have been on the front lines, maybe they really would have treated war as a last resort rather than planning on invading Iraq from day 1. Maybe they would have made plans to secure the country after ousting Saddam instead of ignoring historians who predicted violent resistance to any occupation. Maybe they would have been a little less eager to legalize tourture if they knew their family members could be patrolling the streets of Baghdad and the information leaked out. Invading Iran might not even be on the table of discussion if it meant sending Jr. out on his 4th tour of duty. But no, they've only risked other peoples lives, other peoples sons and daughters.
Far from being a "tired argument", you could hardly find one more relevant.
Yeah. Like Bill Hicks said, two puppets with one puppetmaster.
I'm declaring the next election day "Opposite day." The person with the *fewest* votes wins. They'd be almost guaranteed to run the country better than the last handful of presidents.
We ain't had a president to be proud of since. . . well, a really long time. And this last one is the worst president I can think of, not knowing a buttload of history.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I have already been fingerprinted because of being active in the Catholic church. This is for lectoring, that is reading bible verses during services. I don't work with kids either. This is the way its gone in that segment of society.
I think a DNA + fingerprint + detailed iris scan database is the only way to insure I am me. And store it on NCR's TeraData.
At JavaOne once I looked up my name during registration and there were already nine of me there.
Obviously I am not a member of the ACLU, sorry.
Jim
.....has since become a nearly universal identifier.....
The reason there is a need for such is because of the computer. In any database, each record must be unique. One would thing that/. geeks know this. When SS was invented, there were no computers, but now there HAS to be such an identifier. The SS number just happened to be a very widely used unique number for everybody.
All theory is gray
Insurers have wanted DNA for ages. It allows them to choose their customers for lower risk - so further eliminating the shared risk principal on which insurance is based.
Already if you have a DNA test in the UK the insurers have a right to know the answer. I took part in a research DNA test only under the understanding that there was no possible way for me or my insurers to find the result of anything that may be found.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Apparently my comment (sincere, might I add) was modded as troll my a few people. Fine. They can have their opinion, and I'll have mine.
The point is, I don't need the mayor of New York, a city in which I do not live, suggesting how I operate as a private citizen. If he wants to keep a DNA database of all workers in New York, that's his prerogative. Good luck getting elected next time.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
I think you have a lot of fighting spirit and I don't want to put that down, but you haven't a chance if you want to fight the US Army as a whole. Don't be so ready to assume that all the US soldier's would blindly follow illegal orders. The United States' people wanted the best trained and most technological army in the world, you got it. While you are fixing cars, filling out paperwork, or working on your ranch.. i'm learning better and more efficient ways of clearing rooms. I work out everyday and must pass a nationally created standard of fitness. I'm excellent with my firearms and strive to stay that way. The Army is extremely organized, motivated, and prepared to perform whatever mission is put before them.
Imagine that instead of your usual 40 hour work week you trained and trained on mastering your art of warfare. How good would you be at it after years of learning? If a day comes when soldiers do have to make that choice you eluded to earlier.. the only reason i can think of them not siding with the people is because you've already divorced them. You've decided they're all bad and to be hated.
Something else that should be looked at is the National Guard.. they are very different from a Regular Army soldier. They have a normal job just like you and probably live right down the street. He has sworn himself the same as I except that he's directly under your state's Governor. If you truely must have a civilian military, that's going to be as good as it gets.
But i really do think people forget that the military and the government is made up of people just like you and me. No one is infallable, shit happens. The military is a machine yes, but with many many voices in it. Without those voices the machine wouldn't exist. Only the foolish would assume that all those voices are the same. Did you ever play that game as a kid where you whipser a phrase to the kid next to you and then he does the same. The phrase gets passed from kid to kid all the way around the room until the last kid says what it is. It's never what it started out to be. Your leaders might not all be warmongering demons. There's just shitheads in there messing up the works. blah.. that's enough ranting
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
those acts were commited by members of the armed forces. you do nothing to address that fact...
i did not say anything about mindless killing machines. that is a strawman of your own creation.
you know nothing of my experience with the military, but engage in a little character assassination along those lines anyway.
yes, i do believe is that soldiers are people like you and me. this is why i am concerned. they are just as flawed as anyone else and equally capable of bad judgement and of following through on poor leadership decisions.
the national guard did fire on and kill kent state students. are you so sure this will never occur again? i will take a moment to remind that some of those same insiders from nixon's time are again in power with bush jr. [hint: rumsfeld, cheney, rove].
sum.zero
"Curiously, people who have lost their virtue can't take a stand on virtue (having lost theirs) and tend to attack people who still have theirs."
you are funny.
sum.zero
If you really think the Afghan resistance chased the russian with only guns.... Then you really need to read history book. Firstly they had the support from the western intelligence agency (mostly US) who got them some modern armament, like LAWs Mines, SAMs. They also made some ambush with sniper, but there weren't open air battle with guns that the resistance won. OTOH with all previously named material and a guerilla tactic they made a war of attrition costing a lot of money to the russian in time, material, and human. Guns did not help them. modern armament and bombs did.
The day the US citizen have got LAWs and SAMs and mines to defend themselves instead of only guns, is the day that rethoric of "well armed to defend against governement" will hold as true. But until then with only guns this is a PURE illusion.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
No, they didn't succeed because they were morons who thought they had a valid point in doing what they did. In real life, absoluetely nobody sympathized with them, althoug they did get the conspiracy vote after the whole thing was over. The only sad thing about the whole event is that retarded adults again places children in the way of harm.
Back in the 1970s, at the height of the Cold War, I thought about writing a novel of the near future in which the USA and the USSR gradually changed places. The USA would be concentrating so hard on the Commmunist Menace that it would become a locked-down totalitarian dictatorship (as in 1984, plus electronics). Meanwhile, the USSR would somehow become a free-enterprise society with so few laws that people could do almost anything they wanted. Yet the Americans would go on ranting about the Communist Menace.
Obviously, the plot for such a book would have been hard to design in detail. How on earth was Russia going to become an anarchist's paradise? Yet it has been done: notably by that talented writer James P Hogan in "The Multiplex Man". Not one of his best novels, true; but well worth reading just for his ideas about government.
The American end of the plot seems to be coming to pass, though. It's probably no exaggeration to say that all the legal and organizational preconditions have been met to turn the USA into a totalitarian state virtually overnight. Whether it could really be done depends on what you think of the American people - would they stand for it, or would they explode in violent revolution? Considering the firepower available to the federal government, a revolution would be very bloody and might well fail. Consider the last time some Americans made a concerted effort to get out from under Washington's thumb. I could be wrong, but I suspect more Americans were killed and maimed in that conflict than in any foreign war. Certainly more in proportion to the population of the time.
If we fall into the habit of believing that government is there to wipe our noses and do everything for us, we can't complain if it eventually turns us into adult infants. Will Rogers wasn't joking (for once) when said, "Be happy you don't get all the government you're paying for".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"I suspect you meant B-2s, but I don't think those flew around the world for Al-Qaeda."
I think this counts.
"...27 sorties from Whiteman AFB (to Iraq) and releasing more than 1.5 million pounds of munitions."
I assume when they say munitions they aren't talking about toys for children.
I don't see these specific points being made, although the Nazi Star of David requirement for Jews has been mentioned. If someone else has said them, my apologies.
Genetic heritage. My mother still has the leather satchel containing all the family documents my family compiled to prove to the Nazis' satisfaction there was no Jewish blood in the family. Naturally the officials in question were concerned about forgery. Think how much easier things might have been for the Nazis if only they could have used genetic markers to determine who stayed and who went! A bit ironic a Jewish American is suggesting this plan. When we were locking up Japanese Americans in WWII, and more recently registering & detaining Arab and Muslims, don't you think the gov. would have valued a genetic database?
Crime and punishment. Bruce Schneier has pointed out that one of the balancing acts played out between government and citizen is balancing the level of punishment with not just the severity of the crime, but the ease of solving it. He was speaking in reference to automated, camera-recorded traffic tickets, but a national genetic database is also part of this discussion. It's not possible the gov. would not put such a database to further use; the implications need to be considered beforehand.
Misuse in the business world. The potential for misuse by the business world is pretty awful. If there's a database of workers, then the hiring process gives access to the information. Businesses could use genetics to weed out employees who ran a higher risk of illness, or were an ethnic background the employer found undesirable. And since the medical, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies all hire, they would be able to use the information for their own purposes: for example, deciding which disease/genetic "disorder" to target by its frequency in the database. I say "disorder" because there are many current disorders which were nothing of the kind twenty years ago, but are being classified now as such because it sells drugs and treatment. How much easier to associate this with a genetic marker and use the database to pick markers that are widespread?
The proposed solution is not intended to become a replacement for the social secrurity number, merely a verification tool for prospective employers. Nor can I see this becoming a replacement for the SSN, the SSN by design being somewhat open and convenient. Surely something better could be developed as a SSN replacement if there were sufficient motivation for doing so; but for many applications SSN insecurity can be worked around (something the proposal would do).
What makes you even think US government won't use violence against their own people. They already have. After all they planned and executed 911, but not nearly as perfect as it could have been done. They left traces of their ill deeds at too many places. They were counting on average person's stupidity, apathy, complacency, etc, and it worked.
I could not agree with you more! As a very recent victim of identity theft costing me THOUSANDS of dollar and hundreds of hours, I am amazed at the lackadaisical manner in which so many companies treat our social security numbers. Gas companies require them for service, cable companies require them for service. Hell, a while back, Honda used them for their customer number which was freely available to anyone working on the car in any way!
I've always been passionate about protecting my SS number and not giving it out unless I had to, but I became a victim nevertheless.
The only thing I've been able to do is subscribe to a credit monitoring service to watch for changes in my account and get email notifications after the fact and deal with the messes as they happen. I have no means of changing my SS number, my birth date, my name or my mother's maiden name.
Basically, we're fucked - but why should they care. It's my life, not theirs.
First of all, if some1 is willing to work harder for less THEY DESERVE YOUR JOB!!! But I do agree opportunities should be afforded to legal citizens first. The way you solve illegal immigration is to remove the incentive, but not by changing Mexico, change American employment standards. Migrant workers are often work minimum wage and below doing manual labor and all the jobs no American would apply for in the 1st place. But for the good jobs they do get by working for less, enforce a minimum living wage. If you HAVE to pay any1 who works for you the same amount you'd pay an American, what's the point in hiring migrant workers with typically reduced verbal and written English communication skills? The problem with illegal immigration isn't the immigrants, they're just pursuing the opportunities that lax employers who hire them make available. It's not practical to punish all the employers for who they hire though because that would cost a lot jobs and impair the economy, but if the standards were raised across the board, it would remove the competitive requirement to keep up with the lowest denominator's hiring practices.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Are Americans so blind as to not see what is happening?
"The Pres" keeps coming up with these 'threats' and y'all buy it hook, line and sinker.
Gee, all these terrorists and illegal workers running around the USA better get everyone RFID-implanted, DNA'd and fingerprinted and while you're at it -- RFID the passports and start installing cameras at every street corner.
Naw, the government would NEVER do that as a means of controlling and subjugating the good citizens -- right?
Think it ain't happenin? Hope you aren't discussing anything private on the phone, by email or even VoIP phone -- because you KNOW who's listening... (and watching, and recording...)
How much freedom and privacy are you willing to give up to protect yourself from all these 'threats'.
Funny thing -- there WERE NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I rather doubt there are many terrorists running around the USA at the moment -- otherwise why the hell wouldn't they just climb a pole with an automatic rifle and a few thousand rounds of ammunition (available at any hardware store) and start picking people off.
Why wouldn't these terrorists running around all over the place poison the water supply or do any of a few thousand nasty little things they COULD be doing IF they were actually there...
One must start wondering when people will wake up and smell the coffee -- or must you all be cataloged and tagged like some dog first...
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards.
Do you own a militarily useful firearm?
Can you employ it to help ambush a govt convoy?
If not, get your ass in gear. The clock is running.
Andy Out!
We shouldn't be the ones who pay for criminals and illegal acts. Someone's full DNA is basically the entire person. Once there is a loophole, a leak, or some sort of disturbance, people will be able to create identity theft even easier with new technologies in DNA. Not to mention being capable of cloning humans and maknig that human a fake pretending to be you. Sure, somebody can take a sample of your DNA at any time and use it for whatever but only if this requirement comes to pass. Right now it doesn't matter if somebody has your DNA (unless its that girl from last night) because they can't really do anything with it. But later down the road when we use our DNA for Identity and stuff, it will become more dangerous, identity theft in meaning. There are other ways to prevent illegal immigrants and this should only be left as the last resort because spotting an illegal here is much easyer then scanning people's DNA. We shouldn't need to shed blood for a criminal.
jappleng.com - News best served with breakfast.
Anytime a politician insists that something isn't going to violate your civil rights, chances are that means that it will.
Who the fuck does this guy think he's fooling?
[o]_O
Maybe they would have made plans to secure the country after ousting Saddam instead of ignoring historians who predicted violent resistance to any occupation.
Or maybe Bush should have just listened to his pappy.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
My point was this: it evolved. In other words, circumstances that we did not forsee at its inception, changed the nature and scope of its use. That this type of evolution will occur should be an assumption, allowing us to ask straight away what kinds of risks are we willing to take with information that identifies us.
Indeed, you should pick up a book, too. Obviously enough, it is young idealist army officers who usually instigate a coup.
Look at Turkey -- the military has overthrown the government at least 3 times in the last 50 years, always to restore the ideals the current nation was founded on. Anytime the government comes too directly under the sway of religious zealots, the military steps in and restores secular democracy, to widespread popular support. The Army is in fact the most trusted arm of government, and as such it attracts many of the best and brightest idealists who are proud of their responsibility.
What is particularly amusing is that you chastize the original poster for being such a silly young idealist, then go on to declare governments are filled only with conniving assholes, but nowhere do you seem to recognize that it is only by pointlessly shitting on idealism and hope that people become conniving assholes. Physician, heal thyself.
You both are liars. The Government is voluntary in its inception, and the remedy is en-forced by people that took an oath and are bonded to apply that governance to the trusted matter that was volunteered for its minister. To vote is rebellious activity, reserved to all male rebels in the pseudo-13th amendment asserted by Abraham Linoln. That's why all "Crime" is derived from Contracts that are devoid of Law; Crime is under the trustee instituted by government, a public trust. There is another government, construed as "Government", is a private trust established by VOTE. Why do you suppose that "State of California" competes with that "California Republic" to hold offices of public trust in California? Perform a checksum on those entities with the state known as California, and you'll discover two feuding nations; the "United States" feuds with the Republic having the birth-right. By defenition, the people are reserved where to grant persons and properties to be governed. What do you do when 3/4 of the people want democracy within a republic that by-defenition allows that to occur by preservation of the republic?
The Army isn't a trust of government; it's an unlawful band of men that assume among their powers the attraction to a foreign foe. Army is to be used only when the Authority has been exausted, not because they dislike the asshole of the century. In America, the people are the militia and they don't accept benefit (with attachment to disability) of funding other than donations. Army is in the criminal/military jurisdiction, with Bank One and Citibank.
without prejudice
Are you sure you are not mistaking France with China ? I'll give you a couple hints. One is a democratic country and the other isn't. One has had people demonstrating in the street for just about any reason under the Sun, with the result that government policy on the issue generally changed, while the other had one demonstration in a big square that lasted for a month and ended in bloodshed.
Let us not forget The Terror brought to the French by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution. Fact is is bloodshed is part of most political revolutions, luckily some of the USA's Founding Fathers worked to stop what bloodshed they could, Thomas Jefferson even defended some British soldiers in a court of law.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You confused Al-Quaeda (a CIA-created artificial-entity of paranoia and deception) to the Taliban. Don't accuse someone of knowing verry little, when the same amount of words can reference evidence to support your determination. I know for a fact that CIA had agents that were trained in the dark arts of espionage and torture, and that "Al-Quaida" was nothing more than a code-word for their CIA operation. The Taliban is de jure -- they are supported by the people in Afghanistan, not Al-Quaeda. None have found or seen any rogue agents (known as Al-Quaeda), and have used that ghost imagery only to move about with military force to unjustly seize and search private property in foreign countries that are at peace. Securities fraud! All your, other than the above emphasis, am I witness to its fact with the exception of knowing that there are three entities in force -- the united States (plural in the 1776 Declaration), from the United States of America (in the Articles of Confederation), not the United states evinced as body corporate in the 1871 Abraham Linoln re-organizations, to "United States" a 1933 corporation of District of Columbia bankrupted in 1933 (Title 27, section 3002 15b, where 'United States' means a federal corporation); all these capacities are fluid within Admiralty jurisdiction and Equity, yet there is lack of the de jure presence in the common law...so its all de facto to this day. Foreign Agents. They can't write your name, so they create an alter-ego corporate Trust to perpresture the illusion of jurisdiction and venue, and none comprehend that the fiction was created by the first birth-certificate/bank-note issued at the County and inducted to the corporate State's draft of a "Certificate of Live Birth" to the upper-case STRAWMAN. Who am I from a You?
without prejudice
...that simply held its soil over time.
My/our brother is an active tank "driver". He's already made a few "hits" to his credit, and is recently waiting in Kuwait. What makes you think someone will waste their ammunition at a tank? In times of struggle, ammunition is the cornerstone of survival that is to be preserved more than anything else. It's the most important of the 3-B's; among Beans and Band-aids. A Mine is the measurable remedy to cause the most damage in the smallest area; such precision to cause a tank to de-tract its gear and tread. An anti-tank Mine is nothing like an ant-personell Mine. As well, a steep pit is just as effective as a Mine. I'm thinking of our brother all the time, but I'm also thinking of the brothers I've not yet met. There is no war declared, and it's not about oil because there is evidence as to an abunance of oil in Alask at Gull Island. To the merit of oil, I think it was a psy-ops rumor began by the CIA to give the perception of Oil; when in fact it isn't the Oil that is inflating in value, but the United States dollar/federal is losing value.
You haven't referenced your participation in an armed resolution over the mis-management of your property or effects coerced into another ministry, so I find no value in your claim that a gun is useless. Revolutions aren't limited to one tool: so get out your toolbox and sift through the applications of free energy, wit, love, charity, diligence, and non-dependance.
In my point of view, the moment deception is utilized then I find no merit in anyone. How can you trust someone constantly using deception to non-deceptively declare peace? George Washington had been the first example of someone that held the American people under the war powers of the United States to fatigue the claim of displaced Brittains not loyal to the Crown and the United States.
without prejudice
(1) The US military is made up of volunteers who would have to come back to American soil and kill members of their families for some politician. Not EVERY soldier will do this. Many will join the opposition. Your assumption appears to be that the American soldier does not think about his orders. He does. He must. American soldiers are not mindless killing droids. They are very well educated and trained in comparison with most of the military forces through out the world. They are not going to kill their own people with the same ease they would strangers.
Years ago I voluteered for the army, at the tyme I thought we were headed for a major war. I wanted to be ready and went into the infantry, I was a grunt. One of the hardest parts of being in was having to follow what I thought was stupid orders and would suggest another course of action. While there were some who were gungho and didn't care much about their actions others did care. As for education at most many had a high school diploma, if they finished hs, and a few others had geds. One sergeant though, one of the better ones spent eight years before getting his BA, and the day he got was the happiest day I had ever seen him. There were others who also took college classes to get thier degrees as well.
The government should mind the business of keeping the roads working, the infrastructure intact, the poor and disabled fed, and keeping the military a lean mean "don't even think about fucking with us" fighting machine.
Here, here! We need to go back to a tyme of small government and Liberty!!! The military though is different, yes we should a small core professional military but then also a citizen's militia. I'm tempted to say all adults up to say 65 being in it unless a person isn't capable. If a person isn't physically capable then they should be able to do something that doesn't require it, and if thier beliefs don't allow fighting then something else, such as support. We could make use of Switzerland's model.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ding, ding, mod parent up. The people of Nazi Germany thought they were free too:
h tml
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.
the dirty secret of successful totalitarian control is rooting out the dissidents quietly while making sure the people who go along with it think "if I'm not doing anything "wrong" what do I have to worry about...?" Keep a constant watch on the watchers, some good resources to start:
Libertarian/Paleo right
http://antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/
Moderate:
http://buzzflash.com/
http://moveon.org/
Left:
http://counterpunch.org/
http://commondreams.org/
http://indymedia.org/
That should keep you busy for a while...
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Where and for what price can it be purchased?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
You obviously haven't been to the militia meetings where they show a double feature of Red Dawn and The Patriot. Until you've seen Patrick Swayze and Mel Gibson fighting commies, you just can't understand.
Though I haven't been to any militia meetings or any members of one I have and like both of these movies. I did see Patrick Szayze find commies both not Mel Gibson. No Gibson had the distict pleasure and/or duty, to fight the Green Dragoons. I do prefer Swayze, and Jennifer Grey, in "Dirty Dancing".
FalconShould there be a Law?
Depends on the occupier and how far are they willing to. If you take the German occupation of most countries during WWII, any violence by the resistance would be met with an unreasable amount of blind retaliation.
If the opponent is an occupier, as with your example of the German occupation of France then it's not a civil war.
And don't forget what happened to the Warsaw Uprising... The only reason the French and Soviet resistance did so well was because they were supported by foreign powers still intact.
Actually, while the French resistents enjoyed allied support Stalin refused to support the Warsaw uprising even though both London and Washington DC pleaded for him to do so. Fact is is that he didn't want to risk supporting resistence against the Germans because then they may of had resisted him later. Instead he let the Germans and the resistence fight each other then came in and cleaned up afterwards.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All your DNAbase are belong to U.S.
People shed DNA all the time without being aware of it. What happens if someone borrows my toothbrush (yuk), comb, that crungy dust from my keyboard, whatever and grabs a sample of my DNA and replicates it using techniques similar to the Human Genome Project? Now trillions of copies of my DNA are available to anyone wanting to steal my identity!
Okay, so that's a bit over the top. Isn't it?
Civil War
I'd say civil wars tend to be more bloody than wars from invasions or along borders.
FalconShould there be a Law?