FBI Bringing Biometric Photo Scanning To North Carolina, Via DMV 221
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."
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the worst that can happen is when corporations and the government get together.
Sounds like an argument for keeping Government small and limited in the powers it can exercise. Otherwise Government starts to intrude into the marketplace and instead of a free market we wind up with monopolies backed by the power of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not the other way around? Ah OK, it's not compatible with the free-market mantra, that will bring prosperity and happiness to all the universe anytime soon. Thou shall not deny the Dogma!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think of myself as a particularly strong free-market fan. I'm just skeptical of government attempts to "correct" imbalances in the market. Given the choice between the evil of the free market and the evil of government, I'll choose the markets any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you can not read. Let me repeat - "Corporations are bad, evil, et cetera but at least I can ignore them." I hate corporations; I just hate government more. Even before corporations existed, governments were going-round killing people. Look at Nero and the old Roman Republic.
Anyone who believes they can trust government, after the thousands of years of history showing you can not, is a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't a few things that the government is good for.
Troubles is, aside from law enforcement, infrastructure, and defense...there isn't much left that you need or want govt. for.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Before governments existed, people killed each other for food, shelter or anything. Don't blame it on governments.
Yes but when one person killed another person, it was just ONE person that was left dead. When a government official sets-out to kill, he can kill millions thanks to the power he wields. That's why government can not be trusted with any real power, and needs to be restrained with limits (i.e. a constitution of enumerated powers).
As for corporations they too need to be restrained,
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're saying that people kill people?
Wah?
You make it sound like people are at fault for all the ills of the world. Don' ya know that the sorrows of man are always to be assigned to something nebulous and far away, like the gods, or the devil, or government or corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...now if only we could come up with a document, that would enumerate the limited powers of said small and limited government.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm getting old, but I coulda swore I heard of such a document someplace. From what I understand, though, that particular contract
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:2, Funny)
You were giving positive examples here, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you keep exempting the rich from paying taxes and spend all your public money in useless defence contracts, guess what. You get shitty public services.
For the aforementioned rich it's not so big of a problem, they only care about public services when they're bidding for a good public contract. They can afford private education, private healthcare, private security, etc.
For the vast majority of the people, it's a disgrace. You can't realise that, either because you're a millionaire or you're brainwas
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is very "in the box" thinking.
Affording health *insurance* is not the problem.
Affording health care services *is* the problem.
Government intrusion into health care is what has and is causing the price of health care to go up.
Get government completely out of the health care business, except for what they need for our military personnel.
And, while we are at it, fix unfunded mandated benefits of Social Security and Medicaid, which are currently 58 TRILLION in the hole. Even if we taxed the inco
Re: (Score:2)
Health care or health insurance? They are not the same thing. One is health care, the other is a way to pay for health care.
Here insurance costs $1000 a month, because that is what it costs to deliver the care. It costs that much to deliver the care for a variety of reasons:
-we all demand very expensive tests and procedures
-we all demand very expensive one-on-one attention as we're receiving the very expensive tests and procedures
-we all reserve the right to sue the pants off the doctor if we die of our
Re: (Score:2)
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."
What do you do when all the companies providing the service you want behave in the same way ?
Re: (Score:2)
(3) Get shipped to Afghanistan, Vietnam or some other place where we are currently fighting.
If you're going to mention Vietnam you might as well add the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. Personally, I'd love to be shipped off to Vietnam........great beer, great food, outstanding beaches and the women are hot.
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: (Score:2)
AFAIK, in Germany the cops can ask for your papers at any time. I think Germans are required to have their National ID Card on them at all times. I've met some hold outs who refuse to get one and would rather spend time in jail. A British friend of mine was just walking down the street one day in Germany and some man popped out of a shop doorway and was like "Hey, hey, you there, hey, hey, stop!" and my friend just kept walking thinking the guy was trying to sell him something or whatever, but the man persi
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.)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>then I fail to see how another state could blast me for coming from a state that does not have a similar requirement.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." - One of the oldest legal precedents, and it basically means you are required to follow the laws of whichever state you're currently in. For example: Non-smoking laws inside a restaurant. Even if that's legal in Texas, it's not legal in most of the Northeast or Pacific states. If you have a kind judge he'll let you go, but he doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Wooooo! Naked Connecticut hiking this winter!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're arrested they have to inform you of your rights, and it's time to clap the trap and get a lawyer.
Small matter, but no, they actually don't have to inform you of anything when they arrest you. They have to inform you of your rights before they question you after an arrest.
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.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean "caught" as in arrested - I just meant the police will provide information on how to get free help to break the addiction. You don't have to take the help if you don't want it.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we don't have so many of our population in jail [wikipedia.org] so it's cheaper.
About the war on drugs, it seems that the rest of the world, while not doing much better, is doing a lot less worse [wikipedia.org].
Maybe the "war on drugs" is somewhat of a poor excuse [wikipedia.org] and there are other causes, like, for instance, hum, income inequality [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
if your argument is "We suck, but you suck more"
You are right, "Correlation != causation." is a lot more insightful.
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.
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.
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:2)
>>>voiding 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.
Right. Which is why silence is the best policy. You can't make mistakes or accidently volunteer information if you're mouth is closed. Don't Talk To Police video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
.
>>>border crossings or airports. The courts have mostly held that you have pretty much no rights in those places.
You still have ri
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:2)
Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means? I have an issue with them using the dogs to get PC (a trained handler can make a dog "hit" on anything) but I do tend to think they should be able to use them if they already have PC.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Do you think they should be able to use the dogs once probable cause has been established through other means?
Sure. If an officer SEES a drug, then he has probable cause and can use whatever tools are available to help in his search. But a dog, or anonymous call from a neighbor, or any other non-officer should NOT be used for probable cause. Only the officer's own eyes, as afirmed by oath in front of a judge, can should be used.
Else you have abuses like the Professor Gates cased (illegal entr
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: (Score:2)
You saying people with glasses are unflattering? Hmph. (walks off)
Re: (Score:2)
No, usually everyone's picture is unflattering with or without glasses, because by the time you get to the camera the bureaucracy has you throughly pissed off. It wasn't the lack of glasses that made it less unflattering (on my previous picture I wore contact lenses), but the fact that it was a light day there and I was in a great mood. And the DMV workers were not bad looking women and were actually NICE. Things sure got better at the DMV since Jessie White was elected.
I was glad to ditch the specs because
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I said it should be optional.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
now not okay to smile when you get your license picture taken where I live (planning for the future of biometrics, I suppose
I live in California and, to my knowledge, no such restriction applies on our license pictures. Nonetheless, when I renewed my license recently to have my motorcycle certification added to it the lady at the counter in DMV explained to me (after I flashed a reckless grin for the picture) that they preferred pictures where the person being photographed wasn't smiling. She said it made identification purposes smoother. Now, this young lady was, in my opinion, nowhere near attractive, but, in the most enthusi
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in NC and I'm writing everyone I can find right now.
Same here.
*waits for someone to mod me redundant... rolls eyes*
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.
Re: (Score:2)
how well does this technology actually work?
Just don't smile. [slashdot.org]
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...
Here is what they get (Score:2)
Now I wonder what the NC DMV is getting from the Feds in return..
Easy answer. New toys.
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!
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)
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.
Keeping a database without actually keeping one (Score:2)
How long until the FBI does the same kind of end-run around the law by tapping into DMV biometric data? Right now the government can only obtain a person's fingerprints upon being arrested for some reason, but if the FBI adopts the same policy for DMV biometrics as for DMV pictures it could end up with a database of every licensed driver's biometric data without actually keeping such a database itself.
It seems to me they shouldn't get away with such a thing on a mere technicality of the law.
Perfect example... (Score:2)
" As the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos, they use the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles. "
Perfect example of a government entity CIRCUMVENTING checks and balances installed for a REASON.
Maybe this reason needs to be reiterated in such terms that the fucking FBI can understand it...then close the loophole that allows this circumvention.
Shock G's alter ego (Score:2)
Shock G's alter ego Humpty will never get caught by this system. Perhaps we all need to adopt these [google.com]
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
From Canada, never heard of this case you mentioned, would be interested in more information on the case you are talking about.
This is all I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Canada#Reasons_for_banning_the_death_penalty [wikipedia.org]
The last case was 1962 and the one above 1958, both far too early for DNA testing. Unless you just mean that someone was found innocent after they were already put to death? Because even without a case that is always a possibility. There are plenty of examples of pe
Re: (Score:2)
The case in question was cited as an example of police ignoring contradictory evidence because it didn't support their case, and that decision to ignore evidence leading to the death of an innocent man.
So you're right. It wasn't intended as evidence of DNA evidence being found wrong. For that, you'd have to look at much more recent events. There are, however, still cases of DNA being used to wrongly convict an innocent person. :)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Insurance is not meant to subsidize high-risk individuals; programs that are intended to do so are known as charities. Both have their rightful place. If I was expected to carry 3X the risk which you present, then I would certainly expect to pay 3X the premiums you do, and whether my higher risk is by choice or by circumstances out of my control is entirely irrelevant. No one can force you to provide the information or material required to develop precise, personalized risk estimates, of course, but refusal
Re: (Score:2)
If the answer is yes... then the following is true:
1. The federal government already has your DNA.
2. The federal government already has your fingerprints.
3. You already have an FBI file.
"
Hmm...well, they have my fingerpri
Re: (Score:2)
But, where do you live where you have to give fingerprints and/or DNA just to buy a fucking gun??
In the People's Republic of New York State you can't even legally hold a handgun without a pistol permit. The process of applying for that permit requires your fingerprints. If you are unlucky enough to live in New York City this requirement is also extended to rifles and shotguns.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has not only purchased guns from a dealer, but has sold guns and was the manager of a store with an Federal Firearms License, this is complete bullshit. I did get fingerprinted when I became the manager, but as assistant manager I was never fingerprinted and still had full authority to sell guns. As for DNA, nope, never happened, never was suggested, and is a ridiculous suggestion in the first place.
The only things that are reported to the NCIS when purchasing the gun are personal informati
Re: (Score:2)
I think the error is that your premise requires both competence and good faith on the part of the (very sociopathic) establishments.
Case and point... "The FBI is not supposed to collect / use a national db of faces et al". The spirit and intent of that is rather obvious... so how can you claim "good faith" when they end-run it, and how can you claim "competence" when others collaborate with them to make it happen. This is not one of those "slippery slope" issues - this is waaaay past that little hump. Co
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood the anglo (commonwealth + former parts of the british empire) paranoia about ID cards. The rest of the world uses them and abuse is very rare. You could make the argument that in this technological age data is more easily found and correlated to your identity with such a scheme. I look at it from another point of view though. The technology is going in that direction anyway and identity is going to be established by some authority regardless, I'd rather it be controlled by the governme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>there is nothing preventing the FBI from asking kindly for access.
That's good news. It means the state government can say "no" and shoo the FBI away. My state run by Democrats will probably cooperate, but hopefully my future home in the Free State Project (New Hampshire) will say "frak off" and close the door to Washington D.C.'s intrusions.
Circumvention is the shadiest way of law (Score:2)