40 ms·

A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?

by ejb999 3y ago

cowsup 3y ago
Yes, it is good that they found the child, by any mean’s necessary. Yes, it is concerning that, the moment you’re in police custody, for any reason, your biometrics are stored indefinitely. Both can be true. We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. There are happy mediums in between, and the above commenter thinks a decades-long storing of your fingerprint sounds concerning.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  IMO it seems reasonable that unless you’re convicted within, say, 1 year, your fingerprints are deleted. FWIW if you’re convicted of a DUI I have no problem with your prints being stored indefinitely. DUIs are treated as far, far more minor offenses than they really are.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It seems totally pointless to keep them for a DUI. You have a criminal record if you have one. What do the prints help with?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.
    - CBarkleyU 3y ago
      Just off the top of my head: The prints might help identify you in case you adbuct a little kid
      - Yoric 3y ago
        Do I understand correctly that you are for storing the biometrics of every adult in case they abduct a little kid?
        GauntletWizard 3y ago
        I'm okay with storing the fingerprints and photos of every adult, period. These very loosely tie people to places and times, and perhaps we would treat them more as the very loose link if we understood better how dragnet they are. I'm definitely okay with keeping them on file for every convicted criminal, though I will continue to argue for certain kinds of convictions to be thrown out.
        wierd-eye-loser 3y ago
        [dead]
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        The answer depends if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not. If they are, you'll definitely wish they could be found quickly.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not Presumably you're not going to have one who will be. But that aside - this is silly. Why DUI? Why not just all adults, if you want to go police state on people?
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        If you have a need, then why would you not want a police state? Losing a child is a horrible thing, a horrible feeling to those that experience it. Heck, most progressive are just a mugging away from becoming neocons. That’s just how life is.
  - mushbino 3y ago
    If you're taken into jail, whether you're charged with anything or not and whether you're convicted of anything or not, they keep your fingerprints.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Right, which is why I just specified what I think would be a reasonable change.
- DharmaPolice 3y ago
  >We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. No, we really couldn't. That's an authoritarian fantasy. I don't think people really grasp the volume of crime that's occurring every single day. There aren't enough prisons/police/etc to enforce even a fraction of the laws on the books.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. Will not scale. They had full, unlimited access to all the communications, devices, home and working place of one citizen for four whole years, and the list of criminal charges is higher than the Trump tower
phito 3y ago
Using that logic you could justify the implementation of any technology that could be used later on by malicious actors. "But think of the children!"
matkoniecz 3y ago
The problem is that use of this databases is not restricted only for nonevil uses.
- rangerelf 3y ago
  That's not a problem caused by the existence of the database, but by the presence of people abusing it. Prosecute those people instead of throwing out a legitimately useful tool.
  - Yoric 3y ago
    You're assuming that your country is going to remain a democracy. The 20th century has a bunch of examples of countries that were democracies, until they weren't. That's probably the main reason for which the EU is pro-privacy. Because Europe has seen what can happen when data falls into the wrong hands.
ziddoap 3y ago
Not saying I disagree with your sentiment -- I agree with it in this case -- but "because of the kids" is never a good basis for supporting a position.
clarle 3y ago
That’s the same argument used for government backdoors in phones. Yes, it’s good that these scenarios are stopped, but there’s a longer term outlook that we should take too.
Kinrany 3y ago
This is a very poor argument. Immediately sentencing every criminal to death would also save at least one 9 year old girl.
richbell 3y ago
The government having unfettered access to our personal devices and banning encryption would have also allowed her to be saved. That doesn't make it a desirable capability.
- ejb999 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's not a straw man if your only argument is "it would save at least one person". You need to articulate your position better. Being belligerent in addition to poorly expressing yourself doesn't help, either.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
cultureswitch 3y ago
It's called having principles and it's hard to understand if you're unfamiliar with the concept.
- ejb999 3y ago
  [flagged]
imchillyb 3y ago
Premise 1 = good. Premise 2 = bad. Both can be true, good & bad, simultaneously. Good that a child was rescued. Bad that bio-metrics are stored indefinitely without knowledge or consent of those whose bio-metrics were essentially stolen and waiting to be leaked or used for nefarious purposes. No citizens voted for this indefinite capture. No citizens voted on length of storage, type of storage, sharing options, or security of said indefinite captures. This is bad. ALL BAD. ______ The ends NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!
- rangerelf 3y ago
  I disagree. Drunk driving is treated like a joke, some harmless "Oops", but it's not. Also it's a personality fair: someone who is ok with driving drunk is a candidate for worse things. I for one think it's a good thing to keep their biometrics on hand for _WHEN_ that happens. And if people are found to be abusing this information, prosecute them for it.
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    I didn’t mention any specific charge, or crime, purposely. The indefinite biometric capture is the topic. Indefinitely retained biometric capture is inherently bad; period. There is no scenario where governments can be trusted with that data, especially if it never expires is never deleted and can become ammunition for opposing views.
TheFreim 3y ago
I agree, I don't think a menace such as a drunk driver should have their fingerprints removed from a database. When you drive drunk on public roads, endangering countless lives, you forfeit a bit of your privacy.
taway1237 3y ago
I'm really happy the girl was rescued! This story could end in a horrible way. But no, I'm not in favor of the technology that allowed that. I think there are a lot of tradeoffs to giving the state powerful tracking capabilities, and the same power can be used for evil instead. As another example: I work in cybersecurity for a governmental institution. A LOT of crimes could be solved if my organisation could MITM any citizen and get access to their plaintext traffic, probably also crimes involving 9 year old girls (given the sheer scale of cybercrime on national level). But I really don't want to have that power.
mharig 3y ago
Matrix

A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?

by ejb999 3y ago

A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?

cowsup 3y ago

Yes, it is good that they found the child, by any mean’s necessary. Yes, it is concerning that, the moment you’re in police custody, for any reason, your biometrics are stored indefinitely. Both can be true. We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. There are happy mediums in between, and the above commenter thinks a decades-long storing of your fingerprint sounds concerning.

ethanbond 3y ago
IMO it seems reasonable that unless you’re convicted within, say, 1 year, your fingerprints are deleted. FWIW if you’re convicted of a DUI I have no problem with your prints being stored indefinitely. DUIs are treated as far, far more minor offenses than they really are.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It seems totally pointless to keep them for a DUI. You have a criminal record if you have one. What do the prints help with?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.
  - CBarkleyU 3y ago
    Just off the top of my head: The prints might help identify you in case you adbuct a little kid
    - Yoric 3y ago
      Do I understand correctly that you are for storing the biometrics of every adult in case they abduct a little kid?
      - GauntletWizard 3y ago
        I'm okay with storing the fingerprints and photos of every adult, period. These very loosely tie people to places and times, and perhaps we would treat them more as the very loose link if we understood better how dragnet they are. I'm definitely okay with keeping them on file for every convicted criminal, though I will continue to argue for certain kinds of convictions to be thrown out.
        wierd-eye-loser 3y ago
        [dead]
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        The answer depends if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not. If they are, you'll definitely wish they could be found quickly.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not Presumably you're not going to have one who will be. But that aside - this is silly. Why DUI? Why not just all adults, if you want to go police state on people?
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        If you have a need, then why would you not want a police state? Losing a child is a horrible thing, a horrible feeling to those that experience it. Heck, most progressive are just a mugging away from becoming neocons. That’s just how life is.
- mushbino 3y ago
  If you're taken into jail, whether you're charged with anything or not and whether you're convicted of anything or not, they keep your fingerprints.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Right, which is why I just specified what I think would be a reasonable change.
DharmaPolice 3y ago
>We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. No, we really couldn't. That's an authoritarian fantasy. I don't think people really grasp the volume of crime that's occurring every single day. There aren't enough prisons/police/etc to enforce even a fraction of the laws on the books.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. Will not scale. They had full, unlimited access to all the communications, devices, home and working place of one citizen for four whole years, and the list of criminal charges is higher than the Trump tower

phito 3y ago

Using that logic you could justify the implementation of any technology that could be used later on by malicious actors. "But think of the children!"

matkoniecz 3y ago

The problem is that use of this databases is not restricted only for nonevil uses.

rangerelf 3y ago
That's not a problem caused by the existence of the database, but by the presence of people abusing it. Prosecute those people instead of throwing out a legitimately useful tool.
- Yoric 3y ago
  You're assuming that your country is going to remain a democracy. The 20th century has a bunch of examples of countries that were democracies, until they weren't. That's probably the main reason for which the EU is pro-privacy. Because Europe has seen what can happen when data falls into the wrong hands.

ziddoap 3y ago

Not saying I disagree with your sentiment -- I agree with it in this case -- but "because of the kids" is never a good basis for supporting a position.

clarle 3y ago

That’s the same argument used for government backdoors in phones. Yes, it’s good that these scenarios are stopped, but there’s a longer term outlook that we should take too.

Kinrany 3y ago

This is a very poor argument. Immediately sentencing every criminal to death would also save at least one 9 year old girl.

richbell 3y ago

The government having unfettered access to our personal devices and banning encryption would have also allowed her to be saved. That doesn't make it a desirable capability.

ejb999 3y ago
[flagged]
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's not a straw man if your only argument is "it would save at least one person". You need to articulate your position better. Being belligerent in addition to poorly expressing yourself doesn't help, either.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

cultureswitch 3y ago

It's called having principles and it's hard to understand if you're unfamiliar with the concept.

ejb999 3y ago
[flagged]

imchillyb 3y ago

Premise 1 = good. Premise 2 = bad. Both can be true, good & bad, simultaneously. Good that a child was rescued. Bad that bio-metrics are stored indefinitely without knowledge or consent of those whose bio-metrics were essentially stolen and waiting to be leaked or used for nefarious purposes. No citizens voted for this indefinite capture. No citizens voted on length of storage, type of storage, sharing options, or security of said indefinite captures. This is bad. ALL BAD. ______ The ends NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!

rangerelf 3y ago
I disagree. Drunk driving is treated like a joke, some harmless "Oops", but it's not. Also it's a personality fair: someone who is ok with driving drunk is a candidate for worse things. I for one think it's a good thing to keep their biometrics on hand for _WHEN_ that happens. And if people are found to be abusing this information, prosecute them for it.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  I didn’t mention any specific charge, or crime, purposely. The indefinite biometric capture is the topic. Indefinitely retained biometric capture is inherently bad; period. There is no scenario where governments can be trusted with that data, especially if it never expires is never deleted and can become ammunition for opposing views.

TheFreim 3y ago

I agree, I don't think a menace such as a drunk driver should have their fingerprints removed from a database. When you drive drunk on public roads, endangering countless lives, you forfeit a bit of your privacy.

taway1237 3y ago

I'm really happy the girl was rescued! This story could end in a horrible way. But no, I'm not in favor of the technology that allowed that. I think there are a lot of tradeoffs to giving the state powerful tracking capabilities, and the same power can be used for evil instead. As another example: I work in cybersecurity for a governmental institution. A LOT of crimes could be solved if my organisation could MITM any citizen and get access to their plaintext traffic, probably also crimes involving 9 year old girls (given the sheer scale of cybercrime on national level). But I really don't want to have that power.

mharig 3y ago

Matrix