AHuxley writes "The FBI is getting fast new systems to look at local North Carolina license photos via the DMV. As the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos, they use the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. The system takes seconds to look at chin widths and nose sizes. The expanded technology used on millions of motorist could be rolled out across the USA. The FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System is also getting an upgrade to DNA records, 3-D facial imaging, palm prints and voice scans."
NH gives you the option to have your picture removed from their database after they print your license. Too bad more states aren't that progressive. Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?
Governments can't be trusted. Government software systems developed by expensive consultants often can't be trusted to work properly, even for their simplest functionality.
At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service." Try doing that with the U.S. or State government sometime. There are three possibilities: (1) Suck the money directly from your paycheck. (2) Jail. (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing thei
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing their way through my front door, trying to run every piece of my life.
Have you tried getting out and seeing the world? Corporate abuse and monopolies are all around. You can't ignore them, nobody can. And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.
I lived the past 9 years without TV — watching it only in gym sometimes. Yes, we do have a TV-set — but no cable (our Internet comes via DSL). I think, I've ignored Timewarner/Comcast/whoever it is, whom the government gave my part of town as a monopoly.
The GP's point is valid — ignoring corporations is far easier, than the government.
The government's only acceptable role is ensuring, various corporations compete in providing a service or making goods,
Ideologically Bush [politicalcompass.org] is much closer than Obama [politicalcompass.org] with respect to Fascism [politicalcompass.org]. Neither are really comparable to Hitler or Mussolini though, of course.
Also, I hope you don't actually think anything on that site you linked is true. It's claims are the same type of scare-mongering as William Ayers [factcheck.org], and Obama's birth certificate [factcheck.org](implying Obama is a Black Panther and/or Muslim in disguise respectively, same as your link).
If you're not a troll then I suggest you read the links I provided for comprehension rather than just skimming. You have to distinguish social policy from economic policy(hence my choice of words above). Meaning I don't see socialist, republican, democrat, fascist as different points on a single line, but different points on a grid. One can favor free market capitalism while also favoring social authoritarianism. Similarly, one can favor social freedom while also favoring market regulation.
Keeping the pictures on hand does help to prove identity theft.
Back in the 90's I sold a couple of cell phones to a guy who'd actually gotten some one
else's nfo by rooting through his gym bag. The ID looked like a genuine ID from the DMV because it was. But being the criminal mastermind he was, he didn't realize the DMV would have a copy of the ID with his picture and the other fellows name. Awkward.
By not keeping the photos, you'd make it much harder to prove it wasn't you.
By not keeping the photos, you'd make it much harder to prove it wasn't you.
And you also keep your picture from being used for projects like the one described in TFA. I'll take the added "risk" that someone uses my ID to defraud a cell phone company.
I'm glad Hitler didn't have this photo-filtering technology in 1935. He would have skipped all the nonsense of registration and yellow armbands, and just gone directly to drivers' licenses to find and round-up all the Jews (and other enemies). This new efficient technology would have allowed him to succeed in his goal virtually overnight. Oh yes I know. Godwin's Theory. I don't care - history is history and those who ignore history are fools.
In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times. If you don't qualify for a DL, you can still get a State-issued ID card.
That's not the case in Britain. Nor iin South Africa. Although it was for black people during apartheid. I guess I'll start calling your country the land of the less free every day?
This is a common misconception, but you're only required to identify yourself if asked. Carrying a license is obviously required when engaged in the relevant activity (driving, hunting, selling alcohol, etc.)
The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned those laws as illegal searches. You're required to provide basic information like your name, address, but not required to show a photo ID. You need not carry anything on your body.
Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?
Maybe having a national ID card, like most of the world, would help to avoid that.
Considering the United States has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of incarceration in the world. I wonder if the USA really values liberty over persecuting people.
Most of that is attributable to the so-called War on Drugs. There are a few exceptions but by and large the rest of the world isn't doing any better than the United States on that front. More's the pity.
Much of the world that is having the hardest time with the "War" on unlicensed drugs is having it because the USA is insisting upon it. Meanwhile the USA is one of the world's largest producers and consumers (import and export, consumption and production, and trafficking as well) of illegal drugs. It's solely about profit; even prisons are often for-profit now, which anyone should be able to see is a form of slavery that can only be self-perpetuating in a capitalist oligarchy.
Spain has legalized drugs. Now if you're caught rather than being arrested, you may ask for free medical assistance to break the habit. Or continue on your merry way.
What an enlightened policy. Don't punish people - help them.
Police officers script many of their interactions because of the legal requirements.. You should also.
Note, much of this advice I've received from police officer friends. Endeavor to be polite, but don't give up your rights voluntarily. If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission. If they're asking, not telling, say no.
>>>Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases: "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"
I think even that's too much. I prefer to give my name, my address (if asked), and then silence. I might say something like "According to my Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment I'm not required to answer," but most times I just keep silent.
I've seen too many videos where people repeat "Am I detained" and "Am I free to go" as if they are having a verbal fight with the officer. No good can come of that. It merely escalates the tension of the encounter, whereas silence tends to be calming and de-escalate.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were required to say those things over and over, just don't say much else. Most police officers are decent enough people, and just trying to offend them doesn't do anyone much good. Endeavor to be as polite as possible, but don't respond to questions that start with "May I?" in the affirmative. Avoiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.
>>>If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission.
What I hate is when they use a dog. The U.S. Constitution required an oath before a judge, and since dogs cannot take oaths, they shouldn't be able to establish probable cause either.
The last time I renewed my license, I wouldn't have had to go down to the DMV thanks to a good driving record. However, I'd had eye surgery [slashdot.org] and for the first time in my life I had a chance to get the "corrective lenses" restriction removed. I was happy as hell when they took my picture, and also for the first time in my life the picture wasn't unflattering.
Last April my wallet was stolen, and when I had it replaced they used the picture form the database. But it would be ni
What is convienent for you is also convienent for law enforcement & other government agencies to troll through. This is why civil libertarians fight against government & private databases at every turn. There is a balance between convience and security, but the balancing point is highly individual.
I think this was tried in Florida (as the article notes) back in 2002 but was killed instantly. It seems the trial run had focused on true positives meaning that they only reported numbers on when a person who was in the database was identified correctly. But overlooked the false positives, especially regarding someone who was not in the database being identified incorrectly as being in the database of criminals. Now, that ate up so much time it was instantly canceled. Of course, the FBI have figured out how to reduce this by combining many biometrics and it's now not okay to smile when you get your license picture taken where I live (planning for the future of biometrics, I suppose).
Does anyone know what the rates are for false positives in this new system? How much time is wasted double checking results?
Ignoring the Big Brother/Police state implications for the moment : how well does this technology actually work? How accurate could the measurement of chin width/nose size be if you only have a single photo to make measurements from? With a large uncertainty in your data, I would imagine that there would be many collisions in the database.
It doesn't seem likely that a camera could be set up somewhere in the state that could recognize any North Carolina resident with a driver's license. More likely than not, there would be thousands of hits for each face that walked by the camera, even if the subject wasn't in the database.
had the NC DMV told the FBI to kindly go Cheney itself when issued the request? Seems they are under no obligation to share, but chose to do so. Now I wonder what the NC DMV is getting from the Feds in return...
I read the article yesterday at Yahoo - the one thing that kept coming to mind was this:
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".
They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people. And the AP reporter picture came back as a possible terrorism suspect. You want to end up in an FBI report associated with a terrorist? Even if they clear you out later?
Hopefully they figure out the mistake before you end up where ever they'll be sending terror suspects after GTMO closes.
So nose size and chin widths - isn't this just going to be screwed up for those with mustaches and beards - sort of good for catching almost everyone but Osama binLaden?
I am not normally an alarmist, but the fearmongers of the past 8 years have helped make this happen. This is the beginning of a police state. As seen above, there is more money and time spent investigating innocent people than actually capturing guilty. This IS guilty until proven innocent.
No, this [wikipedia.org] is the beginning of a police state. The federal government has always sought to take power not granted to it in the constitution.
All this information collection as of late is getting a bit disturbing. I work for a bank and I had managed to go 28 years without being fingerprinted, until this year. I have nothing to hide nor fear but I definately do not like having my biometric information floating around out there. I could care less about my social security number and all that, its just inforamtion that can not be directly tied to me. However as a law abiding citizen I take issue with ALL of my information being documented. Part of the patriot act required that every employee working for a bank get finger printed, background checked, photographed, etc. Thanks GWB Lets just make it easier for somebody to steal identities. Seems like the cold war all over again except this time its the government ploting a war against its own citizens.
Seems like the cold war all over again except this time its the government ploting a war against its own citizens.
Those who do not understand the lessons of history... The cold war was a war waged by the industrial capitalists of the US and the USSR against the citizens of both nations. The people who benefited most were the robber barons of the military-industrial complex. Some of the workers therein benefited as well, except that the resulting damage to both economies (the extent of which is not yet fully accounted for in this nation) is harmful to them as well in the long run.
Personally, I am for a national ID system - and a national ID card. Verify social security numbers and biometric data (and even DNA) - and unless govt screws the pooch - identity theft is a thing of the past.
I suggest you listen to your own arguments, might change your mind.
Somebody's going to moderate you troll for what you've said, but I don't think that'd be entirely fair... I do, however, feel that I should address what you're saying...
I don't want the government to have its grubby mitts on my DNA. I don't object to photo identification. I don't even object to having my fingerprints in a national database, even though fingerprints have been shown to be falsifiable, and aren't really all that reliable as a 100% certain way to identify somebody. I do, however, object to the idea of the government taking a sample of my DNA for a very simple reason: it's private. While it is a slippery slope argument, have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? I don't live in the US, but you need to prove your identity to do a great many things, including buying health insurance. If your DNA is part of that identity proof, how long is it going to be before companies start looking through the sequence for markers, and decide that your car insurance rate is going to be 3X as high as mine because you have a marker that indicates you might be slightly more predisposed to narcilepsy?
Quite aside from that, DNA evidence as a means of identifying somebody has been called into question. The genome as it resides in you changes over time, developping small mutations with cell division. Beyond that, there's 3.2million base pairs in the human genome, which would take an inordinate amount of time to sequence completely. As a result, a DNA test usually only looks at certain indicators, rather than the whole sequence. The possibility for false positives resides in members of your own family... even "distant" relations have the possibility of generating a false positive on a search through a DNA database, with the probability increasing as you reduce the number of comparison points that they store. When you're considering a database with hundreds of millions of data points, with the potential for billions if it's expanded to a global scale, you're going to run into a feasibility issue: if you want to store that many records, you either spend billions of dollars developping and maintaining a computer system that's capable of storing and searching through that many records (and allowing fudging in the search to account for mutations due to aging), or you start making decisions as to which search points to store, and which to drop.
And in response to your point:
And dont be so droll as to think that cops are going to be pinning crimes on John Q Innocent because he matches 80%...they are going to investigate just as they would any other crime. Are there going to be some false positives? Of course there will be - just like there is in standard police investigations.
Have you ever heard of police tunnel vision? We've got a match from the DNA database. Sure it's only 80%, but clearly it must be them! The police have been known on many many occasions to ignore evidence that proves the innocence of their suspect because they've decided that the suspect must be guilty. Often, it's only come to light after the suspect has been convicted, and sometimes it's not until after that wrongly accused suspect has been executed. (one such case is actually why capital punishment is illegal in Canada)
So no. You're not going to get your hands on my DNA for national identification. There's other ways to ID me, thanks.
I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Insightful)
NH gives you the option to have your picture removed from their database after they print your license. Too bad more states aren't that progressive. Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know it's actually removed?
Governments can't be trusted. Government software systems developed by expensive consultants often can't be trusted to work properly, even for their simplest functionality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least when the Comcast monopoly or other corporations come-round demanding money, I can tell them to "Fuck off; I don't want your service." Try doing that with the U.S. or State government sometime. There are three possibilities: (1) Suck the money directly from your paycheck. (2) Jail. (3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing thei
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them. I can't ignore Congress because they keep pushing their way through my front door, trying to run every piece of my life.
Have you tried getting out and seeing the world? Corporate abuse and monopolies are all around. You can't ignore them, nobody can. And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.
Corporations vs. government (Score:3, Interesting)
I lived the past 9 years without TV — watching it only in gym sometimes. Yes, we do have a TV-set — but no cable (our Internet comes via DSL). I think, I've ignored Timewarner/Comcast/whoever it is, whom the government gave my part of town as a monopoly.
The GP's point is valid — ignoring corporations is far easier, than the government.
The government's only acceptable role is ensuring, various corporations compete in providing a service or making goods,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I hope you don't actually think anything on that site you linked is true. It's claims are the same type of scare-mongering as William Ayers [factcheck.org], and Obama's birth certificate [factcheck.org](implying Obama is a Black Panther and/or Muslim in disguise respectively, same as your link).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping the pictures (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
By not keeping the photos, you'd make it much harder to prove it wasn't you.
And you also keep your picture from being used for projects like the one described in TFA. I'll take the added "risk" that someone uses my ID to defraud a cell phone company.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
>>>Governments can't be trusted.
I'm glad Hitler didn't have this photo-filtering technology in 1935. He would have skipped all the nonsense of registration and yellow armbands, and just gone directly to drivers' licenses to find and round-up all the Jews (and other enemies). This new efficient technology would have allowed him to succeed in his goal virtually overnight. Oh yes I know. Godwin's Theory. I don't care - history is history and those who ignore history are fools.
Or just read the boo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
that's pretty much standard worldwide, however that has nothing to do with what the OP is saying.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a common misconception, but you're only required to identify yourself if asked. Carrying a license is obviously required when engaged in the relevant activity (driving, hunting, selling alcohol, etc.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
In Oklahoma and a few other states (Connecticut for sure) all adults are required by law to have photo identification on them at all times.
[Citation Needed]
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned those laws as illegal searches. You're required to provide basic information like your name, address, but not required to show a photo ID. You need not carry anything on your body.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Government even allowed to use our driver licenses for anything other than driving, anyways? I don't even carry mine unless I'm driving. Why would I?
Maybe having a national ID card, like most of the world, would help to avoid that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe having a national ID card, like most of the world, would help to avoid that.
Maybe if the rest of the world valued liberty over convenience we'd be better off.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the United States has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of incarceration in the world. I wonder if the USA really values liberty over persecuting people.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that is attributable to the so-called War on Drugs. There are a few exceptions but by and large the rest of the world isn't doing any better than the United States on that front. More's the pity.
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Much of the world that is having the hardest time with the "War" on unlicensed drugs is having it because the USA is insisting upon it. Meanwhile the USA is one of the world's largest producers and consumers (import and export, consumption and production, and trafficking as well) of illegal drugs. It's solely about profit; even prisons are often for-profit now, which anyone should be able to see is a form of slavery that can only be self-perpetuating in a capitalist oligarchy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Spain has legalized drugs. Now if you're caught rather than being arrested, you may ask for free medical assistance to break the habit. Or continue on your merry way.
What an enlightened policy. Don't punish people - help them.
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:4, Insightful)
How are they legalized if you still have to worry about getting "caught"? Perhaps you meant to say decriminalized instead?
Parent
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases:
"Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"
If you are being detained, stop and identify laws in about 1/2 of the states allow officers to demand identification. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes [wikipedia.org] Even in most of those states, you are only required to state your name, not provide documents or any further information besides your name.
You new script is now:
"I do not consent to a search" "I do not wish to answer questions without a layer present"
See http://www.flexyourrights.org/street_stop_scenario [flexyourrights.org] for the slightly more complicated automobile case.
Police officers script many of their interactions because of the legal requirements.. You should also.
Note, much of this advice I've received from police officer friends. Endeavor to be polite, but don't give up your rights voluntarily. If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission. If they're asking, not telling, say no.
Parent
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Any interaction with police not involving a motor vehicle should involve primarily these phrases: "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go?"
I think even that's too much. I prefer to give my name, my address (if asked), and then silence. I might say something like "According to my Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment I'm not required to answer," but most times I just keep silent.
I've seen too many videos where people repeat "Am I detained" and "Am I free to go" as if they are having a verbal fight with the officer. No good can come of that. It merely escalates the tension of the encounter, whereas silence tends to be calming and de-escalate.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were required to say those things over and over, just don't say much else. Most police officers are decent enough people, and just trying to offend them doesn't do anyone much good. Endeavor to be as polite as possible, but don't respond to questions that start with "May I?" in the affirmative. Avoiding saying yes is much harder then you would think as police practice how to get you to say yes without really thinking through what you've done.
Also, if you do end up sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>If the officer has probable cause to hold you or search your belongings, they will make that clear and won't ask for your permission.
What I hate is when they use a dog. The U.S. Constitution required an oath before a judge, and since dogs cannot take oaths, they shouldn't be able to establish probable cause either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad Illinois kept my picture.
The last time I renewed my license, I wouldn't have had to go down to the DMV thanks to a good driving record. However, I'd had eye surgery [slashdot.org] and for the first time in my life I had a chance to get the "corrective lenses" restriction removed. I was happy as hell when they took my picture, and also for the first time in my life the picture wasn't unflattering.
Last April my wallet was stolen, and when I had it replaced they used the picture form the database. But it would be ni
Re:I wish my state was like New Hampshire.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad Illinois kept my picture.
The road to 1984 is paved with convienence.
What is convienent for you is also convienent for law enforcement & other government agencies to troll through.
This is why civil libertarians fight against government & private databases at every turn.
There is a balance between convience and security, but the balancing point is highly individual.
Parent
Anyone Know the Exact Rates (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know what the rates are for false positives in this new system? How much time is wasted double checking results?
Now would be a good time to write your officials (Score:2, Informative)
Write your governor, state representatives, federal representatives, and your DMV to let them know how you feel.
Especially if you are a resident of NC. I for one would be pretty pissed off if I was forced to participate in a (virtual) line-up.
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignoring the Big Brother/Police state implications for the moment : how well does this technology actually work? How accurate could the measurement of chin width/nose size be if you only have a single photo to make measurements from? With a large uncertainty in your data, I would imagine that there would be many collisions in the database.
It doesn't seem likely that a camera could be set up somewhere in the state that could recognize any North Carolina resident with a driver's license. More likely than not, there would be thousands of hits for each face that walked by the camera, even if the subject wasn't in the database.
I wonder what would have happened (Score:2, Insightful)
had the NC DMV told the FBI to kindly go Cheney itself when issued the request? Seems they are under no obligation to share, but chose to do so. Now I wonder what the NC DMV is getting from the Feds in return...
They may have my picture... (Score:2, Funny)
...but they can't see through my tin foil mask!
Mass lineups (Score:2)
The best way to avoid being the victim of false accusations is to not be in the subset of people eligible to be accused. With a system like this, everyone's inclusion is automatic unless you're willing to be an "unperson".
The numbers don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people. And the AP reporter picture came back as a possible terrorism suspect. You want to end up in an FBI report associated with a terrorist? Even if they clear you out later?
Hopefully they figure out the mistake before you end up where ever they'll be sending terror suspects after GTMO closes.
Re:The numbers don't work (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume that it's possible to be cleared out at all. This is highly unlikely, and probably impossible
1-off events don't exist when it comes to criminal investigation. Welcome to the system, CITIZEN!
Parent
mustaches and beards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people.
In the real world, federal criminal investigations don't play out like Columbo.
There can be hundreds of possibilities at least worth considering.
This is the begining of a Police state (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not normally an alarmist, but the fearmongers of the past 8 years have helped make this happen. This is the beginning of a police state.
As seen above, there is more money and time spent investigating innocent people than actually capturing guilty. This IS guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the beginning of a police state.
No, this [wikipedia.org] is the beginning of a police state. The federal government has always sought to take power not granted to it in the constitution.
-jcr
With a patented algorithm (Score:4, Funny)
It will recognize threats to society like terrorists, illegal aliens, and UNC fans.
disturbing... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like the cold war all over again except this time its the government ploting a war against its own citizens.
Those who do not understand the lessons of history... The cold war was a war waged by the industrial capitalists of the US and the USSR against the citizens of both nations. The people who benefited most were the robber barons of the military-industrial complex. Some of the workers therein benefited as well, except that the resulting damage to both economies (the extent of which is not yet fully accounted for in this nation) is harmful to them as well in the long run.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Big assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am for a national ID system - and a national ID card. Verify social security numbers and biometric data (and even DNA) - and unless govt screws the pooch - identity theft is a thing of the past.
I suggest you listen to your own arguments, might change your mind.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Re:What is the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody's going to moderate you troll for what you've said, but I don't think that'd be entirely fair... I do, however, feel that I should address what you're saying...
I don't want the government to have its grubby mitts on my DNA. I don't object to photo identification. I don't even object to having my fingerprints in a national database, even though fingerprints have been shown to be falsifiable, and aren't really all that reliable as a 100% certain way to identify somebody. I do, however, object to the idea of the government taking a sample of my DNA for a very simple reason: it's private. While it is a slippery slope argument, have you ever seen the movie Gattaca? I don't live in the US, but you need to prove your identity to do a great many things, including buying health insurance. If your DNA is part of that identity proof, how long is it going to be before companies start looking through the sequence for markers, and decide that your car insurance rate is going to be 3X as high as mine because you have a marker that indicates you might be slightly more predisposed to narcilepsy?
Quite aside from that, DNA evidence as a means of identifying somebody has been called into question. The genome as it resides in you changes over time, developping small mutations with cell division. Beyond that, there's 3.2million base pairs in the human genome, which would take an inordinate amount of time to sequence completely. As a result, a DNA test usually only looks at certain indicators, rather than the whole sequence. The possibility for false positives resides in members of your own family... even "distant" relations have the possibility of generating a false positive on a search through a DNA database, with the probability increasing as you reduce the number of comparison points that they store. When you're considering a database with hundreds of millions of data points, with the potential for billions if it's expanded to a global scale, you're going to run into a feasibility issue: if you want to store that many records, you either spend billions of dollars developping and maintaining a computer system that's capable of storing and searching through that many records (and allowing fudging in the search to account for mutations due to aging), or you start making decisions as to which search points to store, and which to drop.
And in response to your point:
Have you ever heard of police tunnel vision? We've got a match from the DNA database. Sure it's only 80%, but clearly it must be them! The police have been known on many many occasions to ignore evidence that proves the innocence of their suspect because they've decided that the suspect must be guilty. Often, it's only come to light after the suspect has been convicted, and sometimes it's not until after that wrongly accused suspect has been executed. (one such case is actually why capital punishment is illegal in Canada)
So no. You're not going to get your hands on my DNA for national identification. There's other ways to ID me, thanks.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)