I'll stick to what I know better, I'm not a citizen of
the UK nor have I ever even been there. Hopefully
i'll be able to visit someday.
<semi-random snips to reduce length>
--- Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I think that DNA sampling and cataloging is going to
> be a fact of life in
> the near future. Certainly the information gathered
> could be used for
> unscrupulous purposes, but as with anything, there
> has to be a set of
> controls and rules to be followed. I would support
> DNA cataloging for
> identification purposes, but not for "genetic
> profiling" by insurance
> companies or employers. Clearly a set of rules would
> have to be established
> and rigidly enforced. As for the Police Officers
> that were asked to give a
> DNA sample, what the author doesn't say is that
> while DNA sampling in not
> necessarily common for people that enter a crime
> scene, it is not totally
> unprecedented either. Again, I think that DNA
> sampling, probably at birth,
> is going to be a fact of life. If I am not mistaken,
> I think that mandatory
> DNA samples are a requirement in the US armed forces
> today.
I believe DNA sampling became a requirement after I
got out. But there is no comparison, we're talking
about a civilian populace, not members of a force who
have very few rights (comparatively) while they're
active. DNA sampling in a police investigation is
very different from keeping files on *everyone*, and
if we're moving in that direction it's time to stop.
> As for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
> (RIP), I briefly read over
> the text of the act, it can be found at:
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm
> I am in no way an expert at interpreting the
> legalese in these types of
> documents, but it does appear that probable cause
> must exist to request
> approval for surveillance and interception. Also,
> the rules and conditions
> of surveillance and interception seem to be very
> clearly defined. Honestly,
> they don't appear to be radically different from
> those of the US.
>
In the last superbowl police in Tampa violated the
rights of tens of thousands of people by using video
face recognition software, for naught. Just because
they were concerned about a terrorist threat and there
were calls for "somebody do something", they
unwittingly began treating the general, innocent
populace like criminal suspects. I think I might
start holding the 4th amendment more important than
the 1st or 2nd before long.
> Protection and personal freedom do not always walk
> hand in hand. Here is an
> example, the authorities intercept an electronic
> communication indicating
> that terrorist are going to release a biological
> agent in the subway system
> of a major city. They stop the biological attack and
> save millions of people
> from death or serious illness. Technically the
> rights and freedom of the
> terrorist have been infringed upon, as well as
> thousands of non related
> communications that were monitored to catch the one
> that allowed authorities
> to stop the attack. Is anyone going to complain that
> the rights of the
> terrorist were violated? Probably not. Is anyone
> going to argue that the
> rights of the thousands of people that were also
> monitored were violated?
> You bet. Protection and absolute freedom
A quibble: we're much closer to Protection (and it's
implied subjugation) than we are to *absolute* freedom
already. I don't think hanging on to the freedoms we
have now is so unreasonable.
and liberty
> can not co-exist.
> Certainly there can be cases of abuse, but that is
> why we create laws that
> limit surveillance and interception and well as set
> specific conditions that
> must be met for that to happen.
>
> My favorite line in the article is this one: "In
> coming years, we will need
> to confront new threats to liberty."
> If you want absolute liberty, freedom and privacy,
> then you have to give up
> other things like government protection from
> criminals and terrorists.
We already have adequate protection, I think we're
crossing the line by diminishing the freedoms of the
whole. I think it's at the same time a strength and
weakness of Americans at the same time: If something
is working well now, let's do it bigger/better/faster!
Being someone in law enforcement in a free society is
difficult, as it should be.
Please try this for me- compare what you said about
nuclear power safety (all absolutely correct imo) and
acceptable risk with what you said here about privacy
and protection.
The
> real challenge here should be finding the balance
> that serves both purposes.
> While Mr. Gillmor is raising his glass to liberty
> with other journalist, we
> should all bow our heads and mourn the rampant
> growth and proliferation of
> manipulative journalism.
While i'm far from being a champion for modern
journalism, you could make the case that a significant
portion of the words that come out of anyone's mouth
are tantamount to manipulation.
> <stepping down from soapbox>
>
> Gary
I do understand what you're saying Gary, but it's
people like myself who don't trust the big bad gov'mit
that keep them honest. Not to say that you do. =)
Regulation can eventually be circumvented, or more
commonly lazily ignored. Not granting the power in
the first place makes it much more difficult.
Presently i'm working with a few agencies in the
health care industry. They're in an uproar right now
about enforcing some very strict regulation about
privacy- the prime motivator being to prevent the
proliferation of people's health records and their
social security numbers. It's not going to work, I
can tell you right now. Not for lack of motivation or
lack of skill, it's just the fact that too many people
have access to too much information. I shudder to
think about the same data being kept about my and my
family's DNA, all linked to work history, income, past
residences, and even what i do online (carnivore).
Couple that with marketing data that already is kept
about me (and sold to the highest bidder) and any
moron that works in the right building can know all
about me without ever meeting me. Trusting that kind
of power to such a large amount of people is insanity.
It's simply not conceivable that such could be
maintained as confidential and free from abuse.
dean
just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not
after you
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
