Slashdot Mirror
DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested
Foobar of Borg writes "The AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by a federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in line with the UK which, as discussed before on Slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'"
If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children. History supports that as do numerous social studies.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
It's one thing to single out certain segments of the population for greater scrutiny if the greatest proportion of violent crimes is perpetrated by that group. It's another thing entirely to use that as an excuse to tag and release citizens just because they act like animals.
There has been very little that has been good since the DHS was formed. Maybe it's a matter of them preventing bad things from happening, but the tighter the grip, the more problems will seep through their fingers.
Some criminals already plant cigarette butts in stolen cars, to confuse the evidence and implicate innocent people, and I predict more of this. It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.
To avoid identity theft, not only should you shred everything with your name and address, but now you also need to flush or incinerate everything with your DNA on it.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Maybe.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I would argue that the rich get tax cuts, the poor get social support and the middle class gets the shaft.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
I think everyone needs to (re)read 1984. And stop letting the government remove all your civil liberties in the name of making YOU safe !
That's simply untrue. The "rich" (*those making over $200,000/year) who make up about 5% of the population pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. You can't cut taxes on the poor when they already don't pay them. The bottom 50% (income bracket) of people in the country pay about 3% of taxes. That's right. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Tax_distribution
Why not just strap a camera on our heads at birth and get it over with? It won't be long before they just collect DNA at birth. Why not...will make things easier for law enforcement and that's what this seems to be all about.
While on the surface it may appear to be no more onerous than the fingerprinting system in use today, a DNA database would have far greater potential for abuse. What happens if they decide to use the DNA to detect ancestral or genetic heritage? Not to Godwin the thread, but technology like this would have clearly been misused in the not so recent past.
With the recent abuses of the Patriot Act, I don't trust the government not to overstep the stated purpose of this policy either.
I submit you can be arrested by Federal Agents for all of the crimes you listed in your argument.
If you have stolen a car and take said car to a National Park where you get pulled over for speeding, the LEO is definitely going to arrest you.
If you are in a National Park (or virtually any other Federal property) and get into a fight, you are most probably going to be arrested by a Federal LEO.
How are you comparing a corporation's income to a private citizen's income?
Tell us how much an Exxon CEO's income tax is compared to his income, then the same proportion for someone in the "bottom 50%" (less than $30k/yr gross income).
And let's not forget about the Internet and the NSA and the phone companies. It's no secret they are tracking our online activities. There's no need for cookies; deep packet inspection and profiling online behavior and environment variables are all just part of the game.
I can imagine when ankle bracelets with tracking devices will be put on people who are merely arrested. With new laws being created every year, there is more likelihood of a person doing something criminal. It makes sense to be pro-active when it comes to crime; even thought-crime. Blogs and (I'm sure Slashdot user's [through their postings]) are being profiled by the government. Like the saying goes; if you don't have anything to hide, then there is nothing to worry about.
It's a strange new world.
I think it's very funny that you cut out the portion of the quote where he defines rich as "over $200,000" and then go on to show that that's exactly right. Of course, he was wrong that only 5% make over $200,000, but instead of just pointing that out you go get all high and mighty.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Suppose I have been convicted of some crime like embezzlement or robbing banks. Does this make me a worse teacher of mathematics? Or if I have been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, does that make me unfit for a position as a securities trader in bank?
I realise that certain jobs, like law enforcement and judges, must have a 'clean record' in order to preserve the credibility of the profession as such, but I think society as a whole is going too far in this respect.
Just because you _can_ check every employees fingerprints against a police database doesn't mean you _ought_ to.
If one single company barrs ex convicts from working there, no real harm is done, but when too many companies do this, you get the situation that the only way for an excon to make a living is to keep on being a criminal. Is that what you wanted?
And suppose I apply for a position at some company (or school/public employment....). They ask me for my fingerprints and an extract of my criminal record. Shouldn't I be allowed to ask for the managment's fingerprints/criminal records? If they don't want to take the risk of employing me without knowing if I have been convicted of anything, shouldn't I be given the chance of deciding whether or not to work for someone who has been convicted of abusing his/her employees? Suppose the CEO has a couple of convictions for embezzlement behind him, and his former employees lost a few months worth of wages, I would deffinitely want to know, before making a decision on whether or not to take the position.
As a Canadian living close to the border, I'm feeling less and less welcome, and much less likely to pop over to the US to spend my dollars shopping or sight-seeing, given the growing risk that I'll be detained, finger printed, DNA stolen, laptop hard-drive taken or copied, and given a terrorist risk rating.
Really, "welcome" to the land of the free.
Here's hoping the coming election brings SOME kind of change.
Poor people pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes than rich people do. Rich people get more of their income from capitol gains that are taxed at a lower rate than income taxes. Also, poor people are disproportionately affected by sales taxes, since they spend a greater percentage of their income.
Your numbers only account for income taxes paid. Your numbers don't tell us anything about the actual tax rate paid by individuals. Using these numbers to claim that the US tax system is not regressive is completely disingenuous. Look at the next paragraph in the wikipedia article you quoted:
You're not telling the whole story here, and you know it. Shame on you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Just because you can barely afford the payments for your Ferrari and 500k square foot house, not to mention the monthly trips down to the caribbean for hookers and blow doesn't mean that you aren't rich.
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets.
I don't read AC A human right
When you figure in user fees, transaction fees (have you seen what it costs to get a passport or file a government application?) and the extra cost to you because you've had to repair your car and lost traveling time thanks to the cuts in spending for infrastructure and the road you take to work is crumbling, along with the indirect costs that you bear because the economy is tanking thanks to the war, oil prices and a money policy designed to enrich the President's pals, you have most likely experienced a net loss.
Taxes are more than just the deductions from your puny pay check.
And I wouldn't even mind so much if there was any expectation that the current administration was being even a little bit responsible with the revenue. But you can bet they're falling all over themselves to give tax rebates, "incentives" and givebacks to the corporations, the Chinese and other "sovereign investment funds".
You are welcome on my lawn.
And the figure that Exxon supposedly pays in taxes never seems to include the money they get back in "incentives" for drilling for the oil that they then sell to us at inflated prices.
What we have these days in the US is socialism for the richest Americans. When Morgan Chase was able to buy Bear Stearns with the 29 billion that the government gave them, it was one of the biggest handouts in US history.
And last week the Fed announced plans to loan money to banks (which include brokerages that are not banks) at 2.5 percent, and then turn around and allow those banks to loan OUR money back to us at 30 percent credit card rates, that sure sounds like a handout to me.
George Bush has presided over the greatest transfer of wealth in our history: from the working class to the rich.
You are welcome on my lawn.
These figures are 'capable of' determinations. You can still be rich and bleeding money out like a firehose if you have no fiscal discipline(like most big lottery winners). You might still be saving money and be poor through extraordinary measures.
Somebody who's 'Rich' in the midwest may be poor in NYC.
I don't read AC A human right
Has your children's teacher ever been arrested for being involved in a protest against the government ...
...
..If you want to work for the government don't protest .. ... If you want to work for a large company don't protest.. .......
Note you won't be told *what* they were arrested for they just won't be teaching anymore
So if you want to be a teacher don't protest
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
It is quite possible, however, to give up freedom and still get no safety in exchange.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Corporate taxation is always voluntary. Any company that doesn't like its taxation level can simply disolve as a standard corporation and become any of a number of pass through entites that don't pay corporate taxes but pass all taxes on to the people who were once their shareholders.
For a huge company like Exxon, with many, many foreign investors, corporate investors, etc, this would admittedly take about three to five years to fully transition, as it couldn't just remain monolithic and declare itself a single S-Corp or LLC . There would have to be a number of staged pass through entities which separated stockholders ineligible to join S-corps from ones who were, for example, until all stockholders ended up members of an S-Corp, partnership, LLC, or even a sole propritorship that had contracts with other parts as needed. But, the corporation itself would avoid more and more taxes every year of the transition.
So why not? Corporate immunity. Whatever taxes Exxon pays, it thinks are worth it to reduce its shareholder's liability for 'incidents' such as the Exxon Valdez. If those taxes were ever too high, as determined solely in Exxon's own opinion, they could pick from several of the many alternatives and transition.
This doesn't stop corporations from complaining that their voluntary taxes are too high just like an individuals non-voluntary ones.
Who is John Cabal?
So instead they decided to take a new route.
All ten men paid equally 10% of the bill.
The poorest 5 couldn't afford it, so they didn't drink.
6 and 7 could afford to drink a little.
8, 9, and 10 Could drink the most.
Then they realized that the analogy didn't work at all- substitute drinks with roads, police, firemen, public services. Either they happen or they don't.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.
Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:
Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets. I agree that "Rich" is relative, which is why I get pissed off when someone says that tax cuts only benefit the rich and only the rich get tax cuts. I live check to check with absolutely no money left over. Trust me, I will benefit more from a tax cut than Bill Gates. Granted, he may get a few million more that I do, but what's a few million to a billionaire? Now, an extra $100 a month for me means that I can get that big credit card paid off four years sooner and/or be ready for when an "emergency", like my car breaking down happens! That is HUGE to me.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."
Its also true that:
"Security cameras are a proven law-enforcement tool"
Perhaps DHS spokesman Russ Knocke would be ok with surveillance cameras being installed in his home. I mean, hey, its a proven law enforcement tool, so he should be happy to submit to it.
When I went to the DMV to get my license, I needed 3 original documents to prove I was who I said I was.
Now if I get arrested with a convincing fake ID- then my DNA gets immediately tied to a fake persona - or worse, somebody else REAL. Why should such hardcore evidence have such a shakey foundation? They should require 3 positive forms of identification to get DNA- otherwise it'd be easy to tamper with the database on purpose! And who, when committing a crime, would have 3 positive forms of identification on them? Or any at all??
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
While, on the surface, it looks like the government is once again throwing all kinds of money at big business at the expense of the average American, if you look deeper, you'll see that this really isn't the case. The actions by the Fed and Treasury have really helped us dodge a bullet. The fallout from this whole credit crisis and the pain felt by average Americans is far less than it would have otherwise been.
Replicating the DNA so it can be planted as evidence.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
Two points: Your "not a bailout" arguments seem to center around the fact that the Fed did nothing to avoid the destruction of Bear Stearns as an entity and the fact that a lot of their employees lost their jobs in the transition... that doesn't change the fact that the government stepped in and provided a huge pile of cash to finance a private deal, which pretty much sounds like a bailout to me.
Also, perhaps things would have been touch and go for a while if the government let Bear Stearns collapse ungracefully instead of gracefully, if the government wasn't pumping huge sums of cash into the industry that it may never see again. So? All the government is teaching the financial industry is "feel free to take risky positions, we'll come bail you out by taking on your riskiest investments and lending you money at killer rates". In the long run, it is far more important that banks learn to only take positions that they have properly evaluated and that they can survive. If a dumb bank has to collapse every now and then, so be it.
The bottom 48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax (SS and medicare is another argument, but if you want to argue for their demise you won't hear any complaints from me). In fact, many of those receive "Earned Income Tax Credit." In other words, even if they didn't pay into the system, they still get rebates. Yes, it's income redistribution, for good or ill, that's what it is.
Since I'm no the subject, after the Bush tax cuts, more people on the low end of the scale were paying no taxes at all, the tax burden shifted UP, not down.
Since 2000, the tax burden of the bottom 40% of income earners dropped from 0% to NEGATIVE 4%. Conversely, the burden on the top 20% went UP to 85% from 81%.
I'm sick and tired of people claiming the tax cuts were for the rich; if the rich benefited the most it's because they were paying the most, but everyone got a piece of the pie. Moreover, our tax system is still highly progressive... the tax cuts actually made it MORE progressive (accounting for increasing the percentage of the tax burden for the wealthy and lowering it for the poor). If you still think it's not "fair," then I'd like to see some alternative that you think wouldn't destroy the economy beyond it's already dead in the water behavior.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I agree with the gist of your argument, but let's keep in mind that the Fed didn't just 'give' Chase $29b.
It was a loan, and Chase will have to enter payments to Uncle Sam.
The government spends tons of money in really stupid ways, but I don't see a $29b loan to be a 'stupid way,' provided it prevented further financial meltdown.
This $600 stimulus package, however IS a dumb waste of money. Give my family $1200 in May so you can come at me in April for $1400. That money comes from somewhere...
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Followed by...
You both came close. A considerable amount of Exxon's income (doesn't matter if it's moved to the CEO's pocket or part of a new drill bit or tanker) comes from what? -- selling gasoline, of course. And who is it that pays for that gasoline? The private citizen.
Corporations pay taxes, sure, but everything they pay is built into the price of the items they sell, and you should keep in mind who pays that: The consumer. Who also pays their own taxes.
When someone says "corporations pay XXX and the consumer doesn't have it so bad because they only pay X", they're blowing smoke. Those corporations got a good proportion of that money from the consumer.
For every item you buy, you're paying built-in costs for income tax (and other taxes in some cases) that went into the materials, manufacture, transport, marketing, retailing, etc... of that item. This is with the money you have left over after paying for your own income taxes.
The bottom line is that the tax load on the average consumer is much higher than you think it is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The actual tax burden on the lowest income group will never drop to 0%, much less to a negative number, because the income taxes (and other taxes) of all the people involved in producing everything they consume are 100% built into the prices of those things they consume. From natural gas to a loaf of bread, everything carries a built-in tax burden.
Furthermore -- for instance in the case of natural gas or electricity -- where the utility company has a health care plan in place for its employees, anyone paying for natural gas is forced to pay for that health care plan before they can address their own health care needs, unless they're willing to live in the cold. This is true for all benefits that accrue to workers supplying low income people with services or goods for money.
Painting low-income people as a tax-free or contribution-free group is either naive, or disingenuous. It just isn't so. Less than the middle class? Sure. The middle class carries a huge load.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not yet...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
While upper wage earners pay more tax (and keep in mind their income has sky-rocketed whereas the middle class and poor have incomes that are flat), when you include sales and property taxes it effects a greater portion of the the income of low wage earners. You can't just look at federal income tax and call it a day because it's hardly the whole picture.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is a *better* freedom-enforcement tool -- *and* it has been used a lot longer than this new-fangled DNA stuff.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
So only people arrested for federal crimes, like protesting, will have their DNA taken?
meh