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."

Oh Orwell

[r_jensen11]

The power lies with the proles.

Re:Oh Orwell

[voice_of_all_reason]

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.

guns don't do much good when...

[sum.zero]

your opposition has clusterbombs and cruise missiles.

sum.zero

your point being?

[sum.zero]

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

Re:your point being?

[Casualposter]

(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.

(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 .22. I'll leave a bomb beside the road and set it off with a few parts from radio shack. Americans are ingenious and all of that fancy ass technology is vulnerable and subject to attack by the very people who designed and built it.

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.

Hey look, a gun nut.

[raehl]

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.

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[flobberchops]

Stupid Yank. 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.

Smart Yank.

[raehl]

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 fo

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[Guppy06]

"Terrorists did a HUGE amount of damage to the UK government and over a LONG period of time."

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.

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[OrangeTide]

Last I checked assassination were mainly done with guns.

In a revolution those who are going against the government are generally mixed in with the masses, and are difficult to just hit with nukes and missiles and things.

I agree that if it comes to using guns we're fucked, but infact both the government and the people are fucked at that point. It would result in total collapse of the system and it would take a great deal of time to repair. If the revolutionaries win, then hopefully the rebuild the system bet

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[vertinox]

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.

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.

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[symbolic]

I'd argue that a single, well-placed bullet could do a lot more damage than 10 bombs that missed their target. Bullets are for surgical precision, bombs are for propagating widespread destruction and fear. Ever wonder how it is that Bin Laden escaped? Perhaps it was too little emphasis on surgical precision, too much reliance on bombs.

Re:Hey look, a gun nut.

[johansalk]

You're right. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan had guns and, by golly, the bravest men any battlefield might've seen. What happened to them? B-52s flying in round-the-world-trips carpet-bombed them and their entire camp areas into oblivion. What remained of them wherever they were encountered in skirmishes were within hours of battle starting anihilated by rockets coming from submarines emerging thousands of miles away in the middle of the ocean and then submerging again. How can you fight that?! If Al-Qaeda fighters, tough, hardened, passionate and insane, couldn't do it, then I very much doubt an American civil movement could; Americans were reared on an everyman-for-himself capitalist culture, and good luck to anyone who may try to summon in them the sort of passion, irrational dedication and resolve required for a revolution. You can't even convince Americans to care enough about their fellow citizens to adopt universal healthcare, let alone a revolution. And if anyone thinks the US government won't use violence to suppress internal dissent, then look back at what they did to the leftist movements of the 1960s, they broke their back, they used live amunition on campus grounds to shoot demonstrators.

Yeah, we really wiped them out...

[cyberwench]

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.

Are you STUPID? You must be stupid.

[raehl]

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.

Re:Are you STUPID? You must be stupid.

[raehl]

I'm just using inflamatory subject lines to get posts read. :)

But back to you:

But you contradict yourself because in your original post you said bombs weren't effective

There's no contradiction. I said guns are so useless that terrorsts prefer to use bombs. I didn't say bombs were effective at fighting governments.

What you need to do is take a chill pill, relax a bit and open your eyes and take a LOOK. Otherwise you could spend the rest of your life in your alternate reality.

A look at what? The argument t

Re:What success?

[raehl]

Saying that the governments in the US and Birtian possibly changing is due to the insurgency in Iraq is about as valid as saying the governments in Germany, France, etc, didn't support the invasion because of the insurgency in Iraq, even though the insurgency hadn't happened yet.

Many people thought that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Those people had a government that did not reflect that opinion - in the US, partly because people vote on other issues (like gun control or abortion) that are the most importa

Re:Are you STUPID? You must be stupid.

[unapersson]

I think you need to re-read what he said. He seemed less foaming at the mouth and more frustrated that people fail to understand a very simple concept. He's saying that guns, the greatest source of all freedom according to some, are useless in practice and that anyone fighting a genuine resistance movement have had to fall back on bombs or other dirty measures when met by superior firepower. It's quite a simple idea really.

Guns do let your enemy know where you are. If they've got the firepower, firing a gun

IED's are #1 cause of all troop fatalities.

[raehl]

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

Re:Uh huh

[voice_of_all_reason]

Oh course Koresh and Weaver didn't succeed. They had less guns than their opposition. Revolution only works when everyone helps out.

Re:Oh Orwell

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"Unless we wish the US to be flooded with cheap illegal immigrant labor to the point where there is no benefit to being on our side of the border, methods of excluding illegal immigrants must be found and used."

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.

but it IS an issue.

[Dutchmaan]

"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.

If people think it is a civil liberties issue ...

[Potor]

it is a civil liberties issue.

When will gov't realise this?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue .

[Sponge Bath]

... throw your food at him, or just slap him across the chops and call him a fascist asshole.

After my last visit to NYC, I would say this is SOP.

Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue .

[voice_of_all_reason]

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.

Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue .

[noidentity]

"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?

Re:If people think it is a civil liberties issue .

[kimvette]

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.

Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ...

[khasim]

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!

Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ...

[David Gould]

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.

Stop stealing my punchlines!

[khasim]

Bingo!

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 ... and ... linking that person's body (via tattoos or DNA or fingerprints) to any government authorization.

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

Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ...

[Shelled]

Good idea. Let's test it on the families of politicians first. They believe most strongly in the concept.

Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ...

[mcpkaaos]

Sure. Right after they sign their kids up to go to Iraq.

nonsense

[Scudsucker]

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.

Re:Beyond the Civil Liberties issues ...

[McGiraf]

You didn't read the blurb right, they said it's for WORKING people ...

Is anyone else getting sick of this pattern?

[rob_squared]

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.

Re:If anything...

[symbolic]

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.

Re:but it IS an issue.

[modecx]

Frankly, I'm slightly more comfortable with some illegal immigrant using my SSN and personal information to get a job or even a criminal using my information to milk my bank accounts than I am with the government building a fingerprint and DNA database "to track workers".

Sounds Familiar

[Fullaxx]

Gattaca anyone?

Re:Sounds Familiar

[zavala]

Is it really? Once you're using DNA as a method of identification and society has turned a blind eye, how much longer will it be before companies fire people who are predisposed to cancer, mental illness, or any other genetic trait that a company might find unprofitable for their workforce to have.

Re:Sounds Familiar

[TomHandy]

I think I see why they brought it up though. It's been a while since I've seen Gattaca, but as I recall, it did sort of make the point about where things would eventually go once you started doing this kind of thing. Gattaca seemed to propose a future where the initial genetic identification and modification was relatively harmless (using it for pretty good things like getting rid of diseases and genetic defects, etc.), which eventually led to a society built around getting rid of defective people as a whole or making life difficult for them. I think the point the above poster was making would be that you can start out with just one piece of the puzzle (i.e. a genetic database of every worker in the US), and it could end up being the framework for something much worse.

There is a new disease in U.S. that only affects

[unity100]

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.

Re:There is a new disease in U.S. that only affect

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Argh!

[xpurple]

We should not stand for this! We will not stand for it. Stand up America!

Re:Argh!

[xpurple]

I do not support the National ID card and I will never carry one.

I will carry one

[OldManAndTheC++]

My National ID Card will have my name and address prominently displayed:

Alias Q. McBogus
12345 Main St.
Erewhon, CA 98765

My photo will feature a great big Groucho Marx mustache and a Bozo wig. And I will supply a DNA sample ... from my cat.

Re:I will carry one

[ceoyoyo]

No no, he'll be put in a cage at the zoo. Can't have those six foot mustachioed cats running around!

Re:Argh!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uh, we support the basic idea. How is DNA different than a finger print or photo?

How is asking your name different from demanding your driver's license?
How is patting you down different from a strip search?
How is knowing your address different from entering and searching your home?

It's a 4th Amendment issue at the very least. The general principle is that you don't target *everybody* for investigation just so you can catch a few. Constitutionally you have to have specific reasons to suspect criminal be

I'll Feel MUCH Better...

[eno2001]

If they do this to all the suits first and give us techs access to the system. ;P

Too much TV.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Too much TV.

[Aladrin]

Oh don't worry, I'm sure as soon as this doesn't pan out, they'll issue an RFID tag implanted in your skin to 'hold your DNA information' in a more readily accessible format.

And when that gets hacked, they'll...

Social Security?

[sinclair44]

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.

Yes, I'm sure. Just like when social security was first introduced, we were assured that it wouldn't be abused and used for identification at all -- only social security. That has certainly held over time.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And the Star of David...

[nick_davison]

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.

Re:And the Star of David...

[ultranova]

And I wish that people would remember that Government works for us and we give them their power.

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.

Too many folks act like they're subjects of the Government.

The correct term, I believe, is consumer.

Re:And the Star of David...

[cliffski]

Revolutions shouldnt be neccesary (which is good, because sicne the age of the pitchfork has changed to the age of the apache helicopter, peasant revolts have got waaaay harder). What is needed is a more participatory democracy. You need
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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:And the Star of David...

[NMerriam]

You must be young, an idealist, or both...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.

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.

Re:And the Star of David...

[kimvette]

Actually we have term limits already; it's called an election.

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.

Nazi IS as Nazi DOES.

[mikelieman]

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"...

The database *wouldn't* be a civil liberties issue

[ivan256]

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.

I Loves Me Them Republicans

[dcollins]

"You don't have to work - but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card," he said.

You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I Loves Me Them Republicans

[Kaemaril]

"You don't have to work - but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card," he said.

You see, to a Republican, working is purely optional.

Well, he's absolutely right.

You don't HAVE to work, you could always sponge off the system instead. I'm sure the Republicans would have no problems if you were to do that ...

Oh, wait, nevermind, I think I'm seeing a problem here.

Oh, no, wait ... just had to get myself into the proper Republican mindset for the solution: become a wan

Privacy Violation

[massivefoot]

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.

Re:Privacy Violation

[everett]

Simple solution, copyright your DNA sequence and then sue anyone that obtains it illegally for copyright infringement, since this is America you will win.

Re:Privacy Violation

[porcupine8]

Unfortunately, the right to privacy isn't actually in the constitution. We only have some bits of it now because the supreme court has, over the years, made decisions that are further and further from the actual text of the constitution that say that this right is implied there - which means that a new supreme court could come along at any time and overturn those decisions because the right to privacy is NOT, strictly speaking, actually mentioned. Period.

Which is why we need an amendment guaranteeing the

Amendment IX

[khasim]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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

Re:Privacy Violation

[Reality Master 101]

Which is why we need an amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy.

The problem with that is defining what "privacy" really means without creating more harm than good from unintended consequences (see the Equal Rights Amendment). For example, a lot of people think "right to privacy" means "right to anonymity", which I definitely would NOT support (how do you collect taxes from people who have the right to be anonymous?)

Re:Privacy Violation

[flooey]

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.

Bloomberg's actually in his second term, which is his final term due to NYC mayoral term limits. Thus, job security is already out the window.

DNA not a civil liberties issue???

[glyph42]

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.

o_O

[SmallFurryCreature]

Well talk about taking the big jump. I always got the impression that the US had far less of an ID culture then say mainland europe (for instance in holland you are legally required to ID yourselve at work every now and then and the state can check and fine you)

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.

Re:o_O

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, the frog will certainly jump out of the pot if you put the heat on high. As someone corrupt enough to be the mayor of a large city, you'd think he would be smarter than that. Start with the felons and immigrants, move on to the state dependents (welfare recipients) and employees, then work your way up to everybody.

Re:o_O

[rolfwind]

Do you think America is any less of an ID culture?

In most areas, your landlord is required to report who lives at his apartements to the township/county. If you want to work, you need a social security card and number. Bank account? Even if it's only a positive balance (where the bank gives you no credit) - fill out 15 forms please, and 3 forms of ID. Want to go to community college, same thing + certificate of residence. Oh, and to get a blockbuster card (at my local blockbuster) is probably harder to

Damn.

[Unknown Poltroon]

And i thought the last mayor was a psycho.

Re:Damn.

[porcupine8]

OT: I'm confused by your sig. Why is moderating someone troll or offtopic automatically abusing the system? Why would those options be there if no one should use them? (Or does your sig mean something else? It's a little unclear.)

Tell that to 26.5 million US veterans...

[jabbo]

> 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.

But wait, there's more...

[jabbo]

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 bein

Re:Tell that to 26.5 million US veterans...

[espressojim]

I agree that this data isn't something I want gathered (because trolling for criminals will be too easy). However, as a minor nitpick: you don't resequence the human genome for each individual. You test a relatively small number of single nucleotide polymorhpisms (SNPs) or microsattelite markers. The amount of markers needed is very small to establish uniqueness, and the cost is pretty low per person (it'll cost more to extract the blood and purify the dna than to run the genotyping.) Financially and technically this is very doable, but I don't think it SHOULD be done.

Uniquely identify?

[cortana]

Are there no identical twins in the United States?

Re:Uniquely identify?

[darkstar949]

Most politicians don't pay attention in science class.

Re:Uniquely identify?

[enitime]

"DNA and fingerprint technology [...] will 'uniquely identify the person'"

Good point though. I wonder how the police deal with DNA evidence for twins. I very much doubt their DNA testing is sufficiently advanced to pick up the minor differences in DNA twins have. I guess they have to hope for fingerprints.

Someone should ask for a DNA sample from mayor Bloomberg. If he has nothing to hide, why not give it to the public? We can test for all kinds of diseases, maybe see if he's predisposed to any mental il

Re:Uniquely identify?

[6ULDV8]

No. The Patriot Act coupled with the DMCA specifically prohibit unauthorized copying of DNA by infants.

Dreamworld Indeed

[eander315]

" "You don't have to work _ but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card," he said. "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 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 p

Gattaca

[caluml]

GATTACA. Watch it.

Great plan

[keyrat rafa]

"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.

I'm surprised Bloomberg does not get it

[phoenix.bam!]

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."

Re:I'm surprised Bloomberg does not get it

[thrillseeker]

Even if the workers are illegal they are paying taxes so that's at least a good thing.

Then why is it that Texas, which has no personal income tax, but gathers their revenue via a sales tax, has a far less illegal alien problem than California, which has one of the highest income taxes of the states, but a lower sales tax?

The actual problem are the employers hiring illegals and paying them under the table.

The problem is we have created a system where taxes are collected by employers, and not via some

Bad... But any different...

[RexRhino]

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

If you insist, it must be true

[mmeister]

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 t

Call me snake

[Facekhan]

So which one of the Bloomberg Youth gets to die first trying to stick me with that needle?

Hey Bloomberg!

[TimmyDee]

Fuck you!

Invasion of privacy

[kilodelta]

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

Not at IBM

[aktzin]

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 [ibm.com]

And what else will employers be screening for?

[Dogun]

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.

Re:I'm for it.

[Freexe]

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.

Re:I'm for it.

[porcupine8]

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. You can't change your fingerprint, cornea, DNA, etc like you can an ID number. Not that they are likely to change someone's SSN even if it's known that an imposter is out there using it, but at least it's a possibility. Credit card numbers are certainly changed all the time for this reason.

I'm not saying I believe this argument automatically means it's a bad idea. It's just on

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'm for it.

[La Camiseta]

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.

Cops don't even take finger prints.

[khasim]

Real world police work is NOT like the movies/TV. The GP needs to get a clue.

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 sus