3 ms·

Isn't this just circling around the real problem? It is not that the government is able to collect the data, but that it is able to store it and cross examine i

Isn't this just circling around the real problem? It is not that the government is able to collect the data, but that it is able to store it and cross examine it indefinitely. A much more balanced (and fair) system will be they arrest you for some reason. Get your DNA and fingerprints and check for open crimes. If no charges are pressed or you are acquitted etc the data that they got for you is purged by law from their databanks. This way the government will have easy time by catching you once to check what other stuff you have been involved in but if in the future you get involved in a crime scene they won't have an arrow pointed straight at you.

rmc 13y ago
if in the future you get involved in a crime scene they won't have an arrow pointed straight at you. Conversely, will knowing that "the government have my DNA" make people less likely to commit that future serious crime? It's all a balancing act...
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Conversely, will knowing that "the government have my DNA" make people less likely to commit that future serious crime? It's all a balancing act... So, you are arguing for giving up your DNA at birth to make people less likely to commit future crimes? Because you are arguing that the means justify the end here.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Because you are arguing that the means justify the end here. An engineer would couch this as designing a system to achieve the desired results.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Then take it from all babies from birth if you think so. But the idea that you are outside the system but on first infraction you are there forever baby is unjust. You must have ways of getting out. The idea that a government will have much harder time catching someone with clean record than someone that 15 years ago was caught with marijuana in college is unsettling.

3 ms·

Isn't this just circling around the real problem? It is not that the government is able to collect the data, but that it is able to store it and cross examine i

by venomsnake 13y ago

rmc 13y ago
if in the future you get involved in a crime scene they won't have an arrow pointed straight at you. Conversely, will knowing that "the government have my DNA" make people less likely to commit that future serious crime? It's all a balancing act...
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Conversely, will knowing that "the government have my DNA" make people less likely to commit that future serious crime? It's all a balancing act... So, you are arguing for giving up your DNA at birth to make people less likely to commit future crimes? Because you are arguing that the means justify the end here.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Because you are arguing that the means justify the end here. An engineer would couch this as designing a system to achieve the desired results.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Then take it from all babies from birth if you think so. But the idea that you are outside the system but on first infraction you are there forever baby is unjust. You must have ways of getting out. The idea that a government will have much harder time catching someone with clean record than someone that 15 years ago was caught with marijuana in college is unsettling.