3 ms·

> In the not so distant future the government will have have a database with everyone's dna. It's just not possible to keep something secret that you literally

> In the not so distant future the government will have have a database with everyone's dna. It's just not possible to keep something secret that you literally shed everywhere you go. There's an important difference between physically being able to keep something secret, and legally being able to keep something secret. For instance: today the government has the physical ability to break into my house and shoot me in the head for no reason at all, but they don't have the legal ability to do so. Likewise, they have the physical ability to illegally obtain evidence, but not the legal ability to use that evidence to convict someone at trial.

DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago
Glad you highlighted "today", because tomorrow is much different as supreme court and FBI become more politicized. Rules seem to change on a whim. Or as in Canada gov't can declare an emergency an seize protester bank accounts. Another thing to point out is "today" should be in "today in some countries". Russian oil executives are mysteriously falling out of windows and boats all of the sudden.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I mean ever heard of fred hampton? That one blew up publicity-wise and is fairly famous now but there's no reason to think it was the only relatively recent example or that they've ever stopped doing things like that. The rules aren't meaningless but they also don't stop the government from assassinating you if they decide that works out best for them.
im3w1l 4y ago
I agree, but when it's this difficult to physically kept it secret, then someone will collect it. That someone will then tell the police in return for some favor and the police will cook up some parallel construction. The result is the same except more corrupt and expensive.
soperj 4y ago
> today the government has the physical ability to break into my house and shoot me in the head for no reason at all, but they don't have the legal ability to do so. Isn't that exactly what they did to Breonna Taylor in Louisville? Haven't seen anyone arrested for that.
- undersuit 4y ago
  Technically the police did have a warrant and legally executed it. Sure the recent scuttlebutt is that the warrant was created from falsified data, but at the time it was legal.
  - soperj 4y ago
    So then the original poster was wrong?
  - DerekL 4y ago
    Not just scuttlebutt. One of the detectives has already pled guilty. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/us/breonna-taylor-ex-officer-kelly-goodlett-guilty-plea/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/us/breonna-taylor-ex-officer-...
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Haven't seen anyone arrested for that. Now you have: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62427546 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62427546: > Breonna Taylor: US police charged over shooting death > Four US police officers have been arrested and charged over the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor. That happened a month an a half ago.
  - MandieD 4y ago
    Only once the feds stepped in, though.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Only once the feds stepped in, though. What's that got to do with the actual point here, which is privacy that's infeasible through purely physical means can be implemented through legal means? As an aside, tech people can be annoying black and white sometimes, and do things like misinterpret imperfect solutions as literally no solution at all. DNA is not going to be protected by all the buzzwords we use to describe encryption systems, but that doesn't mean it can't be protected.
gremlinsinc 4y ago
Technically they can do it legally. Few years back in Kansas City (iirc), some guy was basically prank calling the police on a gamer, but got the wrong house, police just knocked on the door. No weapon. Killed some the dad, and walked. No repercussions at all for the police. The prank caller got like 5-10 I think, as he should. But there's something wrong when somebody dies by cop and they are unarmed and don't serve time.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> For instance: today the government has the physical ability to break into my house and shoot me in the head for no reason at all, but they don't have the legal ability to do so. > Technically they can do it legally. Few years back in Kansas City (iirc), some guy was basically prank calling the police on a gamer, but got the wrong house, police just knocked on the door. No weapon. Killed some the dad, and walked. No repercussions at all for the police. The prank caller got like 5-10 I think, as he should. But there's something wrong when somebody dies by cop and they are unarmed and don't serve time. It sounds like that was a mistake on the part of police. I was not talking about "SWATings gone wrong" or anything like that. I was talking about deliberately killing someone just because you can.
- batch12 4y ago
  I believe you are talking about swatting [0]. Framing this as a prank call is a bad way to describe it because it trivializes the attack. Based on your whole comment, I assume that wasn't your intention though. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting
sidewndr46 4y ago
Not at all accurate. During the Obama administration the groundwork was laid for the extrajudicial execution of American citizens https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... Anyone deemed to be "part of the forces of an enemy" may be targeted.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Hasn't this always been the case? I assume if you were after a foreign general and there are some American mercenaries in the same building well "I guess they're out of luck"; still gonna bomb the complex.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Historically the case for American's citizens has been a capture or kill doctrine. It's fine if in the midst of a capture, they happen to be killed. Now the government has the explicit authority to kill citizens.

DwnVoteHoneyPot 4y ago

Glad you highlighted "today", because tomorrow is much different as supreme court and FBI become more politicized. Rules seem to change on a whim. Or as in Canada gov't can declare an emergency an seize protester bank accounts. Another thing to point out is "today" should be in "today in some countries". Russian oil executives are mysteriously falling out of windows and boats all of the sudden.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 4y ago
I mean ever heard of fred hampton? That one blew up publicity-wise and is fairly famous now but there's no reason to think it was the only relatively recent example or that they've ever stopped doing things like that. The rules aren't meaningless but they also don't stop the government from assassinating you if they decide that works out best for them.

im3w1l 4y ago

I agree, but when it's this difficult to physically kept it secret, then someone will collect it. That someone will then tell the police in return for some favor and the police will cook up some parallel construction. The result is the same except more corrupt and expensive.

soperj 4y ago

> today the government has the physical ability to break into my house and shoot me in the head for no reason at all, but they don't have the legal ability to do so. Isn't that exactly what they did to Breonna Taylor in Louisville? Haven't seen anyone arrested for that.

undersuit 4y ago
Technically the police did have a warrant and legally executed it. Sure the recent scuttlebutt is that the warrant was created from falsified data, but at the time it was legal.
- soperj 4y ago
  So then the original poster was wrong?
- DerekL 4y ago
  Not just scuttlebutt. One of the detectives has already pled guilty. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/us/breonna-taylor-ex-officer-kelly-goodlett-guilty-plea/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/us/breonna-taylor-ex-officer-...
tablespoon 4y ago
> Haven't seen anyone arrested for that. Now you have: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62427546 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62427546: > Breonna Taylor: US police charged over shooting death > Four US police officers have been arrested and charged over the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor. That happened a month an a half ago.
- MandieD 4y ago
  Only once the feds stepped in, though.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Only once the feds stepped in, though. What's that got to do with the actual point here, which is privacy that's infeasible through purely physical means can be implemented through legal means? As an aside, tech people can be annoying black and white sometimes, and do things like misinterpret imperfect solutions as literally no solution at all. DNA is not going to be protected by all the buzzwords we use to describe encryption systems, but that doesn't mean it can't be protected.

gremlinsinc 4y ago

Technically they can do it legally. Few years back in Kansas City (iirc), some guy was basically prank calling the police on a gamer, but got the wrong house, police just knocked on the door. No weapon. Killed some the dad, and walked. No repercussions at all for the police. The prank caller got like 5-10 I think, as he should. But there's something wrong when somebody dies by cop and they are unarmed and don't serve time.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> For instance: today the government has the physical ability to break into my house and shoot me in the head for no reason at all, but they don't have the legal ability to do so. > Technically they can do it legally. Few years back in Kansas City (iirc), some guy was basically prank calling the police on a gamer, but got the wrong house, police just knocked on the door. No weapon. Killed some the dad, and walked. No repercussions at all for the police. The prank caller got like 5-10 I think, as he should. But there's something wrong when somebody dies by cop and they are unarmed and don't serve time. It sounds like that was a mistake on the part of police. I was not talking about "SWATings gone wrong" or anything like that. I was talking about deliberately killing someone just because you can.
batch12 4y ago
I believe you are talking about swatting [0]. Framing this as a prank call is a bad way to describe it because it trivializes the attack. Based on your whole comment, I assume that wasn't your intention though. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

sidewndr46 4y ago

Not at all accurate. During the Obama administration the groundwork was laid for the extrajudicial execution of American citizens https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... Anyone deemed to be "part of the forces of an enemy" may be targeted.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
Hasn't this always been the case? I assume if you were after a foreign general and there are some American mercenaries in the same building well "I guess they're out of luck"; still gonna bomb the complex.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Historically the case for American's citizens has been a capture or kill doctrine. It's fine if in the midst of a capture, they happen to be killed. Now the government has the explicit authority to kill citizens.