Slashdot Log In
A DNA Database For All U.S. Workers?
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 27, 2006 12:16 PM
from the he-has-the-best-ideas dept.
from the he-has-the-best-ideas dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Government Adds Consumer Databases To Mining Queries 179 comments
mrraven writes "According to an article in the Washington Post the government is increasingly using consumer databases for surveillance purposes. " From the article: "It is difficult to pinpoint the number of such contracts because many of them are classified, experts said. At the federal level, 52 government agencies had launched, or planned to begin, at least 199 data-mining projects as far back as 2004, according to a Government Accountability Office study."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh Orwell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Hey look, a gun nut. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Hey look, a gun nut. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Hey look, a gun nut. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Ulster is still part of the UK and the IRA seems to spend more time killing other Irish than agents of the Crown. And regardless of what "damage" may have been done to the UK, it's kinda hard to have a popular uprising when you lose the "hearts and minds" of the people, or did you not notice the warm reception Gerry Adams has been getting in the US recently?
Long term, terrorism accomplishes little but tarnishing your own cause as you establish for yourself little more than warlords with a reputation for thuggey (you don't see many Westerners asking for Chechen independence any more, do you?). If you want a successful revolution, you get yourselves uniforms and follow the laws of war, otherwise there's no reason for anybody (friend or foe) to believe that the people building suitcase bombs to support "independence" today won't be building them to support their own personal cause tomorrow.
Parent
Re:Hey look, a gun nut. (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean... Like spending less than $50,000 to get your minions to fly a plane into a building in which makes the enemy's people go dumb-walled and think by spending their country into oblivion and invading other countries that it will somehow solve a problem that could have been fixed by just installing a hundred dollar lock on all the cockpits doors?
I'm being sarcastic, but by all accounts it appears that if nothing else, terrorism has done its job. It has made us Americans over react and in effect kill ourselves in the process. (Curing the disease by killing the patient and what not.) I suppose we might be able to recover from the $9 trillion worth of debt and we might be able to recover our freedoms and we just might be able to live like things were before 9/11 (you know... no hassle at the airports... banking without having massive security checks... wiretaps... things like that), but I'm not holding my breath.
And yes... I agree with you. A crazy man with a hunting rifle is no match for a B-52 and a guided missile.
Parent
Re:Hey look, a gun nut. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Yeah, we really wiped them out... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Are you STUPID? You must be stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
your point being? (Score:4, Insightful)
sum.zero
Parent
Re:your point being? (Score:4, Interesting)
(2) The US military would be fighting itself on its own ground. The best way to view this is by reading about the last Civil War we had. Neither the rebellion, nor the Republican attempted Coup that followed succeeded in over throwing the US constitution. The fight was long, bloody, and demonstrated that americans can fight a long war with barely enough to fight with. I would not bet on who would win in another civil war.
(3) The US has one of the most heavily armed and trained populaces in the world. Many of our citizens are military or ex military. We keep our skills in marksmanship good because we enjoy it. The highly advanced and trained US military is losing in Iraq and lost in Vietnam because the only totally successful conquest of other people has been and is to kill everyone on the other side to destroy them utterly. Sherman practiced this type of warfare on his march through the south to the Atlantic Ocean. The American settlers practiced this on the indigenous populace.
(4) The Jews in the Ghetto did not have an entire country for territory and were mostly unsupported by the general populace. They are a better comparison to the Branch Davidians, who were small, lightly armed, unsupported by the general populace, and surrounded. Sure, any group of lightly armed people when facing an army superior in arms and numbers will lose, but this has been true since Tsun Tsu was writing his first page.
(5) As for thinking that the average American soldier will be better supplied than some guy in his neighborhood, think twice about that. The soldier will be in both unfriendly and unfamiliar territory, most likely, and most of us folks out here in the suburbs are armed and well armed at that. Maybe folks in New York City will have trouble finding guns, ammo, and first aid supplies, but in my neighborhood we have plenty. That soldier will have to carry his stuff with him. Big difference and every attempt to deprive a rebellious populace of its supplies increases the number of rebels.
(6) Any civil war in America will be fought like the revolutionary war and the civil war: bloody nasty, and done in sneaky ways. To hell with engaging a tank with a
I would really like to see the US government return to being a government of the people and by the people and for the people, and get off of this destructive fascist kick. This DNA database would be mismanaged, wrong, and misused. No good will come of it. Hell the Veterans bureau can't even keep up with Veteran's information. The DOD has "lost" a trillion dollars worth of "stuff" they can't find.
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.
Leave the rest of it to the people.
Parent
Re:Oh Orwell (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be ashamed of yourself. Go ahead, be ashamed. I better see your head hanging. There you go.
Statements of such "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" (FUD) are idiotic and counter productive. By your reasoning, the country is ALREADY overrun with cheap illegal immigrant labor and the country is a ghetto hell hole.
Oh, wait, it isn't. That's because you assume that the lack of draconian, totalitarian measures constitutes free reign for illegal immigration. It's the under-educated, uninformed like yourself that have led this country to have so damn many right-wing fascists and I for one am so sick and tired of even being aware that people like you exist.
Don't bother replying, as this is the only exchange I intend to have with you.
Parent
but it IS an issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just by saying that, he's acknowledging that its a civil liberties issue.
If people think it is a civil liberties issue ... (Score:3, Insightful)
When will gov't realise this?
Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue . (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Parent
Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue . (Score:4, Funny)
After my last visit to NYC, I would say this is SOP.
Parent
Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Parent
Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a better solution would be to simply tattoo a serial number on everybody's arm -- it'd be functionally equivalent, but much cheaper to implement.
Parent
Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Is anyone else getting sick of this pattern? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:If anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:but it IS an issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds Familiar (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Social Security? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Social Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
-jcr
Parent
And the Star of David... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish people would learn that we can trust the government simply because they tell us we can.
Re:And the Star of David... (Score:5, Interesting)
No. The monopoly on violence the government holds gives it power. Specifically, the backing of armed forces - US Army - is what gives the US Government its power. You have power over it only when you have a real chance of overthrowing it; at that point the government might listen out of self-preservation. Democracy was supposed to ensure that the public always has this power, and can use it in a bloodless manner, but it's working less and less well.
I don't know if there's a solution. As soon as humans band together into large enough groups you need government to keep them from killing each other; but since that government needs to hold near-total monopoly on violence to accomplish this and is made from human beings it will inevitably end up abusing its power. Any attempt to stop this process only slows it down; and even if you stop the actual government from growing out of control, it simply provides a power vacuum for aristocracy or corporations / robber parons to do it instead.
Maybe it's the nature of human race that we must have revolutions every few generations to keep things working.
The correct term, I believe, is consumer.
Parent
Re:And the Star of David... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) everyone to vote
b) every vote to count
c) people to vote based on impartial information
A) can be done by legal means, b) requires proportional representation and c) requires major shakeups in party funding, political advertising etc.
Nobody has this perfect, but australians HAVE to vote by law, and even the almost-as-bad-as-the-us UK has a ban on political TV and radio adverts. I like to think that acts as a good limit to the extent to which politicians can brain wash us into believeing what they say.
People don't see electoral reform as a major issue, but I'd suggest it is THE issue, because once its fixed, the chances of getting everything else fixed is totally transformed.
Parent
Re:And the Star of David... (Score:4, Insightful)
The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.
Democracy cannot guarantee that people have the power. The only thing that keeps current government from going totally fascist is that people would rise up against them (so in a sense there's a democratic element that prevents state dominion). As soon as the military/police power is strong enough (and enough Americans stop owning guns), they can and will go further.
Parent
Re:And the Star of David... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:And the Star of David... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, much like mod points, people throw their vote away because their candidate is "cute" or "likeable" despite the fact that he's a corrupt piece of shit.
Parent
The database *wouldn't* be a civil liberties issue (Score:3, Interesting)
I Loves Me Them Republicans (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.
Re:I Loves Me Them Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
-jcr
Privacy Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Violation (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Amendment IX (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because it is not specifically listed in the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) does not mean that it is not a Right.
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 blata
DNA not a civil liberties issue??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to 26.5 million US veterans... (Score:4, Interesting)
> 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.
Re:Tell that to 26.5 million US veterans... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I'm surprised Bloomberg does not get it (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Hey Bloomberg! (Score:3, Funny)
Not at IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
And what else will employers be screening for? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:There is a new disease in U.S. that only affect (Score:3, Funny)
P.S.: God bless America!
Re:I'm for it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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