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.

 d-usa wrote:
Or you could just see that the constitution plainly states that the government has to have a reason for searching us and a reason for obtaining information. It's spelled out pretty clearly, and nothing about technology changes that.

I know it's unconstitutional (I said that in my post ). That's the problem. Stop crying 'unconstitutional' for a moment and imagine what form the system could take. How it might be implemented, its uses, possible abuses, safeguards, etc. Look at all the things that can be done with a DNA database of everyone and consider the costs and benefits.

Then consider that no matter how beneficial it can be it can never be used.

The constitution protects innocent people. It was not written to make it easier to catch bad people.

Catching bad people does protect innocent people. The issue is that advancing technology has produced means that make it easier, and with proper law and safeguards, minimizes the abuses. But it still can't be used because it violates the BoR. That's a problem to me.

EDIT: In this we also have the Constitution hamstringing practical problem solving. The reason we can't do this is because the constitution says we can't, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper with ink on it. Your argument is 'the constitution says we can't so we can't' mine is 'I know the constitution says we can't but what if we did?' Why should we hamstring us ourselves to a piece of paper that's 200 years old just because its been around for 200 years?

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
See I fail to see their failure. As a basic enumeration of the rights of citizens and restrictions on Government there's nothing wrong with them. Sure no quartering of soldiers is a little outdated, but past that I'd say we're still spot on. You have a right to a trial, the right to speak and worship as you please, the right to weapons if you so chose to have them. The right to be secure in you property and your person. These aren't outdated by any extent I'd say.

It's abstract. Look at how different the world is now compared to 1913. What do you think it will look like in 50 years? 100? Collecting DNA from everyone at birth is currently widely considered unconstitutional, but the usefulness of the practice is insanely huge. Rape as a crime goes from being one of the hardest crimes to prosecute to one of the easiest for straightforward cases. Any situation where DNA is left at a crime scene (blood/hair) becomes a much more precise means of gathering suspects and witnesses. But we can't do it, because it violates the right to privacy and people are afraid that the government will abuse the system (the former is a valid argument I consider the later to be pointless fear mongering).

It's a great example of wrong thinking. Because we could have already done this is way back in the day if that was something they were interested in doing.

We could have painted all newborn babies, or get a portrait of all people once they became adults so that they could have mugshuts and lineups. That could have been done even back when we wrote the constitution.

It has nothing to do with fear mongering. It's the law, and just because it would be easier to break the law so that you can catch law breakers is no reason to change that.

Then we could have updated it to switch to photographs, and keep an updated database of every american for crime fighting purposes.

Then we could finger print everybody as technology changed, and keep a database of every single US fingerprint.

And now we could update that for DNA databases.

Or you could just see that the constitution plainly states that the government has to have a reason for searching us and a reason for obtaining information. It's spelled out pretty clearly, and nothing about technology changes that. The government has to have a reason to search us. Just because it would be easier to search everybody and then link them to crimes later doesn't mean that it is right.

The constitution protects innocent people. It was not written to make it easier to catch bad people.

Aweseome response there... have an exalt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Or you could just see that the constitution plainly states that the government has to have a reason for searching us and a reason for obtaining information. It's spelled out pretty clearly, and nothing about technology changes that.

I know it's unconstitutional (I said that in my post ). That's the problem. Stop crying 'unconstitutional' for a moment and imagine what form the system could take. How it might be implemented, its uses, possible abuses, safeguards, etc. Look at all the things that can be done with a DNA database of everyone and consider the costs and benefits.

Then consider that no matter how beneficial it can be it can never be used.

The constitution protects innocent people. It was not written to make it easier to catch bad people.

Catching bad people does protect innocent people. The issue is that advancing technology has produced means that make it easier, and with proper law and safeguards, minimizes the abuses. But it still can't be used because it violates the BoR. That's a problem to me.

EDIT: In this we also have the Constitution hamstringing practical problem solving. The reason we can't do this is because the constitution says we can't, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper with ink on it. Your argument is 'the constitution says we can't so we can't' mine is 'I know the constitution says we can't but what if we did?' Why should we hamstring us ourselves to a piece of paper that's 200 years old just because its been around for 200 years?

What are you really trying to say? Is it that it's too hard the amend the constitution? Or even, having federal statutes to acomodate new technologies?

 whembly wrote:
What are you really trying to say? Is it that it's too hard the amend the constitution? Or even, having federal statutes to acomodate new technologies?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are 200 years old. If the only argument against something is that the Constitution doesn't allow it, we're completely circumventing any reasoned discussion about things like street cameras or DNA databases simply on the basis of a document written when such things couldn't have existed or comparative ideas (mug shot database) would have been no where near as practical. It completely shuts off possible solutions to problems that could improve the safety and security of society over petty notions.

What do you lose if the government has a DNA database and never commit a crime? You've lost nothing but some skin cells. If the system is well regulated, only allowed to be use for very specific purposes, what real harm has been done to you? None. Most of the arguments against it that go beyond the Constitutionality of it end at slippery slope arguments about how its a step forward to an Orwellian state. EDIT: Hell at best, crime rates drop. At worst, and more realistically, criminals get smart enough to circumvent the system and it just becomes something of a waste.

And yeah. I highly doubt we're going to see a Congress anytime soon that is willing to even discuss an amendment that lets the Federal Government circumvent 200+ years of Civil Rights law and precedent to do something, no matter how useful that something might be. Of course, the current state of congress would probably write a really bad version of a DNA database anyway so that's probably for the best

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What are you really trying to say? Is it that it's too hard the amend the constitution? Or even, having federal statutes to acomodate new technologies?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are 200 years old. If the only argument against something is that the Constitution doesn't allow it, we're completely circumventing any reasoned discussion about things like street cameras or DNA databases simply on the basis of a document written when such things couldn't have existed or comparative ideas (mug shot database) would have been no where near as practical.

And yeah. I highly doubt we're going to see a Congress anytime soon that is willing to even discuss an amendment that lets the Federal Government circumvent 200+ years of Civil Rights law and precedent to do something, no matter how useful that something might be. Of course, the current state of congress would probably write a really bad version of a DNA database anyway so that's probably for the best

I do see you're point... still chewing on it though...

Wonder if it would be feasible to have a grassroot effort to have 3/4 of the states to call a Congressional Convention? But, then again, that seems like a scary proposition.

Meh. You can never really know how something works until you actually do it. Downside is that when you go through the process of passing huge legislation like the Healthcare Act, a DNA database, or Medicare/Medicaid, is that when problems come up in the system, you get the people who want it outright destroyed, the people who want it fixed, the people who can live with the current flaws and ultimately fixing those problems just takes forever.

Government sucks like that sometimes.

 LordofHats wrote:
If the only argument against something is that the Constitution doesn't allow it, we're completely circumventing any reasoned discussion about things like street cameras or DNA databases simply on the basis of a document written when such things couldn't have existed or comparative ideas (mug shot database) would have been no where near as practical.

It's not the only argument against something, it's just the only argument that your side might actually listen to. If you refuse to acknowledge that innocent people have rights - to not be spied upon without a warrant, to not be locked up for the rest of their lives without trial, to not be exiled from their home country for being a Muslim - then forcing you to recognise their rights by writing rules about what the government is and is not allowed to do is the next best thing.

 AlexHolker wrote:
not to not be spied upon without a warrant

All I get from this is you don't even know your own civil rights.

The police already don't need a warrant to spy on people so long as they are in a public place. Of course, you're free to sue for harassment but that's hit and miss. Street cameras aren't much different from having a patrol car on every corner I doubt anyone would ever argue the police sitting a patrol car on the corner of a street is unconstitutional (though I'd never propose sitting cops in a room to watch monitors for hours. That's just a waste of resources. Its far simpler to just record the feeds and pull them up when needed (also makes it easier to prevent abuse when access is limited).

to not be locked up for the rest of their lives without trial,

Who in this thread even proposed that? That's a specific problem spawning from a hole in International Law concerning a select group of people. Nidal Malik Hasan last I checked is getting a trial. So is Bradly Manning. US Citizens don't get held without one and half the people we have been holding without trial probably would have had one ages ago if politicians stopped arguing about which court they belonged in (military/civil). Not that the the military minds holding them without trial though. Least I don't think they mind. Many of the high profile detainees have gotten trials. Hell, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is getting a trial.

to not be exiled from their home country for being a Muslim

Again. Who proposed that? Stop going off topic. I'm talking about very specific ideas. Ones that have wide uses and benefits and that are outright ignored on very narrow grounds (hell the at least the other things you bring up are things that people have actually talked about happening). If you have an actual logical argument behind not using street cameras or a DNA database that isn't predicated on Constitutional Rights lets have it. That's all I really want from people, but of course as you aptly demonstrate getting there is kind of hard.

- then forcing you to recognise their rights by writing rules about what the government is and is not allowed to do is the next best thing.

I don't even know what you're arguing against. Perhaps try actually reading what I'm saying and responding to it rather than ranting about something else?

I tried to read the article, but there were so many typos the author lost all credibility. Spell check is helpful, but it shouldn't be the only proofreading done on a piece of writing.

 LordofHats wrote:
What do you lose if the government has a DNA database and never commit a crime?

Seriously, are you sure you're not speaking to us from the pages of a Shadowrun sourcebook?

 Seaward wrote:
Seriously, are you sure you're not speaking to us from the pages of a Shadowrun sourcebook?

Do you have an actual argument? Still waiting for one. Go on tell me. What have you lost? What harm has been done to your person? The essence of civil rights is that they protect persons from undue harm at the hands of the state. Even strictly limiting such a database's use to identifying cadavers makes it useful (and is something the armed forces already do) and does absolutely no harm to anyone.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
What do you lose if the government has a DNA database and never commit a crime?

Seriously, are you sure you're not speaking to us from the pages of a Shadowrun sourcebook?

Only the guilty have something to hide. Amirite?

 AustonT wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
What do you lose if the government has a DNA database and never commit a crime?

Seriously, are you sure you're not speaking to us from the pages of a Shadowrun sourcebook?

Only the guilty have something to hide. Amirite?

The guilty and the interesting; someone with nothing to hide is boring.

I think the outrage about things like government intercepts of emails, and cameras going up in New York (or before that London) is basically a losing game for the civil libertarian/small government set. It's a losing game because it's basically a broken way to look at the issue - insisting that government should remain ignorant.

If you doubt me, look at all the outrage in London when the cameras were put up, and then look at how they outrage disappeared when the cameras were so useful in identifying crimes committed during the riots.

It's basically a doomed effort because it's way overshooting the target - the problem of government misuse of surveillance methods doesn't mean government shouldn't be allowed to methods of surveillance, it means those uses must be monitored and made as public as is practical.

This means that what should be argued is for proper, established process for the use of these technologies. It means that the answer isn't 'no cameras on the streets' but 'cameras whose recordings are watched only according to strict guidelines, which is monitored by an independant and empowered body'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BryllCream wrote:
Orwell is generally regarded as being extremely readable. I suggest you try again, Nineteen Eighty Four is a very easy book to read.

It's an easy read, just not a particularly thrilling one. This is basically due to Orwell's belief in plain english - that you form a thought and then consider the most complete and most succinct way to put that thought onto the page. Wordplay and clever phrasing that might capture the emotion of the situation is irrelevant compared to a clear explanation of the event.

It's why a lot of authors will say that Orwell's best work was as an essayist, rather than as a writer. And it's why a guy like, say, Graham Greene, is often regarded as having produced some similar and superior work to Orwell, as Greene was an author first. In, say, The Quiet American, which Greene set up three characters as analogies for the UK, US and Vietnam, he then let those characters grow and become believable, living people, which Orwell never did in say, Animal Farm (where the characters acted not out of any in-world developed motivations, but just because their actions were whatever mirrored Soviet Russia).

Orwell is a great writer and a personal favourite, don't get me wrong, he's just not a typical for writing's sake kind of guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I've said for many years that Stone is talented and entertaining when working with fiction (original screenplay for Conan, no?), but should be steered away from when he tries to get historical (JFK, anyone?).

JFK is one of the most technically accomplished films I've ever seen, and I mean that from every possible angle. It is simply amazing how much information he packed in to that script while keeping it accessible and thrilling enough to be a mainstream hit. The use and presentation of flashbacks, and the editing to move between investigation and events is simply brilliant. The use of music is exceptional. And he got an emotional, effective performance out of Kevin Costner.

I mean, the arguments put forward in the movie are horribly misleading, the product of a guy's who political beliefs are basically nuts, but as a technical piece of film making it's an incredible work.

Speaking of such governments, East Germany was another classic, back in the day. I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it the fantastic German film The Lives of Others (that's the English title, of course). Really an outstanding look at what life was like in that kind of country, and just a great, moving, and entertaining movie as well. The score is superb as well.

Yeah, it's a wonderful movie, and a great insight into how things really are in a police state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't suppose anyone has stopped to consider that as much as we loathe Bush, that just maybe (maybe) some of his policies were actually beneficial in some regard? Beneficial enough that a successor might just continue them?

I think it isn't so much that those ideas are good or bad, but that given what happened on September 11, they're basically inevitable, that anyone with half a chance of making it to the White House would have set up elaborate email monitoring and put Predators over countries with terrorist networks.

As such, I think the answer is less about making those things go away (because its not going to happen and probably wouldn't be a good idea) but about making sure there is as much oversight, judicial and democratic, over their use as is possible.