Why do think they are? everybody's going for uber-conspiracy theory without any evidence of what they say is happening.
I know I got mine back. And I'm pretty sure the ACLU would be all over this type of thing if what you and others are saying. Perhaps they have been and lost the case, but proof is required for such things to be believed as fact.
'might as well' isn't a valid legal argument. I'm quite sure people have argued to have theirs removed.
I'd be highly interested if it can be proven they are keeping records after acquittals/charges dropped; if so I'd also be surprised nobody like the ACLU had fought that and won.
You're DNA is available to anybody willing to do the most minimal of research. I.e. you drop it everywhere every day.
I understand your point. It's valid, but it's a different issue than whether governments should be able to collect data on people they arrest.
Society is going to have to deal with the issues DNA raises, such as medical history, tendencies, etc. This is just another area it will need addressing. But the Gov should be able to check arrested people against other crimes and do currently.
Hmm, I was arrested at 20 yrs old. Charges dropped. I currently have a Security clearance from the US DOD and have been gainfully employed in tech since only 3 years after said arrest 20 years ago.
Yeah I have and most politicians, liberals and others, have sold out to 'but terrorism'.
Whether stuff is deleted or not is a different question and yes I'll have an issue if it isn't. That doesn't change the fact that collecting information and data from ARRESTED individuals is already done widely and used to see if that individual has possibly committed a currently unsolved crime. If you have an issue with that, you already have it and DNA isn't any different in that respect.
I've been arrested. I've had my prints taken. And when the charges were dismissed, they notified me to come get the original cards so I could properly dispose of them as I saw fit.
My experience is otherwise (NY 20 years ago). They notified me to come pick up my original fingerprint cards after charges were dropped.
Perhaps that's changed but to my knowledge they are expunged.
It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.
Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for them to match your prints against unknown prints found at other crime scenes. I suppose I could see waiting until you're 'convicted' before checking you against unsolved crimes, but realistically I'm pretty sure it's done upon arrest and collection of the prints (and now DNA).
For once? I guess maybe they started farther ahead of us. i.e. no 5th. I seem to recall a case where they asked an entire town to provide DNA samples to catch a crook. Most complied. The quote that sticks in my memory was from an officer "No they don't have to, but we'd be quite interested in anybody who declines for obvious reasons."
My one time experiencing this (20 years ago in NY) was that once the charges were dropped I was called to come get my fingerprint cards. I.e. they don't keep them.
Of course the new mantra "But Terrorism!" may have changed that...
Actually I'd bet good money your DNA *is* on the original fingerprint card. Sure it's mixed up and thoroughly hard to get, but it's going to be there on the original card.
They already have license to run said 'dragnet' with your fingerprints. I'm as liberal as they come...and I really don't see the issue here. Now, like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence should be destroyed.
Basic point, treat it like the other identifiable information they already collect on you. Is this really that hard?
Slashdot has generally become a hangout for hecklers and no-nothings who simply do not know what they are talking about regards new ideas and technology
So they cancelled him...and gave him a grace period to switch over before said cancellation goes into effect.
You're running servers right now at home. We all are. He was of course doing it at a scale beyond any normal or sane definition, but the TOS specifically prohibits 'any server' not 'ungodly amounts of servers'.
My VPN is a 'server'. My music streaming system is a 'server'. All computers are 'servers' by almost any definition.
Every computer is a 'server' by some definition. And, hey, you know I want to VPN into my home machine from a remote location. That means I need a 'server' by which to connect. It listens for and responds to external accesses..
Or streaming my own music to myself as I am out and about. Again, that's a 'server'.
Legalese is ridiculous. Check your mortgage, you are prohibited from storing anything flammable on your premises. Sure hope you don't have a gas car or lawn mower....
Bandwidth is a rate, not an amount. They cancelled him because of the 'amount' of data he was transferring. They physically block you from exceeding your bandwidth..
I usually go with the "never assume malice when incompetence can explain it", but you're probably right.
I don't want the Filibuster gone, it's a 'good' thing, but only when it hurts to use, when it stops the Senate completely while it's being used.
The last 'agreement' they made was just so convoluted it showed just how messed up the Senate is. And Reid could fix much of it if he truly wanted too.
We're actually going to be quite short of weather sats in the next decade or so. That we had a backup this time is nice, but hardly indicative that everything is going well.
The only caveat is that Sen. Majority Leader Reid has had multiple opportunities to reform/repeal the filibuster and hasn't. Nor has he called the GOP's bluff and made them actually filibuster.
If you let the bully continue to bully you, you are not innocent in the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do think they are? everybody's going for uber-conspiracy theory without any evidence of what they say is happening.
I know I got mine back. And I'm pretty sure the ACLU would be all over this type of thing if what you and others are saying. Perhaps they have been and lost the case, but proof is required for such things to be believed as fact.
Again, proof of claims is important. I don't doubt it would be quite easy for what you claim to be the case, but that doesn't make it the case.
'might as well' isn't a valid legal argument. I'm quite sure people have argued to have theirs removed.
I'd be highly interested if it can be proven they are keeping records after acquittals/charges dropped; if so I'd also be surprised nobody like the ACLU had fought that and won.
From personal experience? i.e. I destroyed my print card personally upon dropping of the charges and it being returned to me.
Wherever did you find any proof that they aren't destroyed?
And defense lawyers apparently don't know this? If it was that scatter shot of a match, the science wouldn't hold up.
Any sources to back up your claims? And bonus points for why defenses aren't apparently using said sources?
You're DNA is available to anybody willing to do the most minimal of research. I.e. you drop it everywhere every day.
I understand your point. It's valid, but it's a different issue than whether governments should be able to collect data on people they arrest.
Society is going to have to deal with the issues DNA raises, such as medical history, tendencies, etc. This is just another area it will need addressing. But the Gov should be able to check arrested people against other crimes and do currently.
Because I personally destroyed mine when they gave them back to me?
Hmm, I was arrested at 20 yrs old. Charges dropped. I currently have a Security clearance from the US DOD and have been gainfully employed in tech since only 3 years after said arrest 20 years ago.
Yeah I have and most politicians, liberals and others, have sold out to 'but terrorism'.
Whether stuff is deleted or not is a different question and yes I'll have an issue if it isn't. That doesn't change the fact that collecting information and data from ARRESTED individuals is already done widely and used to see if that individual has possibly committed a currently unsolved crime. If you have an issue with that, you already have it and DNA isn't any different in that respect.
I've been arrested. I've had my prints taken. And when the charges were dismissed, they notified me to come get the original cards so I could properly dispose of them as I saw fit.
My experience is otherwise (NY 20 years ago). They notified me to come pick up my original fingerprint cards after charges were dropped.
Perhaps that's changed but to my knowledge they are expunged.
It's still something we're already doing with existing data so DNA, while a more detailed medium, is still personal data being collected about you. It's no different and shouldn't be treated any differently than fingerprints.
Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for them to match your prints against unknown prints found at other crime scenes. I suppose I could see waiting until you're 'convicted' before checking you against unsolved crimes, but realistically I'm pretty sure it's done upon arrest and collection of the prints (and now DNA).
I understand your opinion, but how is this different than current handling of fingerprints?
For once? I guess maybe they started farther ahead of us. i.e. no 5th. I seem to recall a case where they asked an entire town to provide DNA samples to catch a crook. Most complied. The quote that sticks in my memory was from an officer "No they don't have to, but we'd be quite interested in anybody who declines for obvious reasons."
My one time experiencing this (20 years ago in NY) was that once the charges were dropped I was called to come get my fingerprint cards. I.e. they don't keep them.
Of course the new mantra "But Terrorism!" may have changed that...
Actually I'd bet good money your DNA *is* on the original fingerprint card. Sure it's mixed up and thoroughly hard to get, but it's going to be there on the original card.
They already have license to run said 'dragnet' with your fingerprints. I'm as liberal as they come...and I really don't see the issue here. Now, like fingerprints, once charges are dropped, all such collected evidence should be destroyed.
Basic point, treat it like the other identifiable information they already collect on you. Is this really that hard?
Slashdot has generally become a hangout for hecklers and no-nothings who simply do not know what they are talking about regards new ideas and technology
So it's the internet basically?
Show me anything in their agreements that states x MB/GB/TB of data is the max you may consume. It's always a 'rate', not an amount.
The 'fine print' has been a pedantic ninny for ages. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the people claiming to abide by their own TOS isn't a new thing...
So they cancelled him...and gave him a grace period to switch over before said cancellation goes into effect.
You're running servers right now at home. We all are. He was of course doing it at a scale beyond any normal or sane definition, but the TOS specifically prohibits 'any server' not 'ungodly amounts of servers'.
My VPN is a 'server'. My music streaming system is a 'server'. All computers are 'servers' by almost any definition.
But my OS is Windows SERVER 200x?
Every computer is a 'server' by some definition. And, hey, you know I want to VPN into my home machine from a remote location. That means I need a 'server' by which to connect. It listens for and responds to external accesses..
Or streaming my own music to myself as I am out and about. Again, that's a 'server'.
Legalese is ridiculous. Check your mortgage, you are prohibited from storing anything flammable on your premises. Sure hope you don't have a gas car or lawn mower....
Bandwidth is a rate, not an amount. They cancelled him because of the 'amount' of data he was transferring. They physically block you from exceeding your bandwidth..
I usually go with the "never assume malice when incompetence can explain it", but you're probably right.
I don't want the Filibuster gone, it's a 'good' thing, but only when it hurts to use, when it stops the Senate completely while it's being used.
The last 'agreement' they made was just so convoluted it showed just how messed up the Senate is. And Reid could fix much of it if he truly wanted too.
We're actually going to be quite short of weather sats in the next decade or so. That we had a backup this time is nice, but hardly indicative that everything is going well.
The only caveat is that Sen. Majority Leader Reid has had multiple opportunities to reform/repeal the filibuster and hasn't. Nor has he called the GOP's bluff and made them actually filibuster.
If you let the bully continue to bully you, you are not innocent in the results.