FBI Ramps Up Next Generation ID Roll-Out—Will You End Up in the Database?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Tacobake**

"Years." What's years I have been posting on this stupid website for years. It's your stupid country how can you people let this gak happen.

**dogma**

AustonT wrote:
It's not THAT much of a stretch considering in 1967 Katz V US majority opinion states, "Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures"

People V Cook in California asserts, "We reject the Orwellian notion that precious liberties derived from the Framers simply shrink as the government acquires new means of infringing upon them."

Katz and Cook are related cases, niether specifically addresses the level of sophistication and survaillence now present in say, New York. The spirit of both, is clear. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy from the unblinking eye of cameras that now crowd the public spaces. Whereas the watchful eye of a patrolling officer is subject not only to training, but clearly defined due process. The specific constiutionality of unfocused survaillence by and for the purpose of law enforcement can and must be addressed. So no...not a stretch as the development of technology and reasonable expectations of privacy continue to evolve and require examination.

Alright, then how is being incidentally videotaped a "search"?

Or are you claiming that the camera unlawfully seized your image?

**sebster**

Chowderhead wrote:Correct. This isn't a problem if you haven't been downloading Child Porn and stalking around school children.

Or if you happen to share a name with someone who's downloaded child porn. Or happen to look like someone who is suspected of committing a crime. Or happen to be on the same piece of footage as someone who committed a crime, that didn't merit the follow up to account for a full and proper acquittal.

The briefest look into the messes that are the no-fly list and the child sex offender lists will show there needs to be very, very strong controls over building these databases.

**daedalus**

sebster wrote:
The briefest look into the messes that are the no-fly list and the child sex offender lists will show there needs to be very, very strong controls over building these databases.

Nah, it will be fine. They've got smart people working on it, I'm sure. Besides, did you hear the McRib is back?

**Easy E**

I'm pretty sure I'm all ready on some watch list anyway, what's one more.