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.
2014/04/15 15:16:15
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Keeping samples long after they should have been disposed of, and then refusing to dispose of them
And how bad is that really. It's not like they can really do anything with them.
Assuming you are 100% correct (and I seriously doubt you are) then there is a BIG reason to dispose of them. It costs the tax payers money to catalog and store the samples. If there is really nothing they can do with them it is a waste of resources to maintain them.
That being the case, why would anyone advocate for more government waste?
I just think it's an overreaction. What do you think they can do with them?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2014/04/15 15:26:23
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Which strawman are you claiming that I am arguing? That DNA will not be abused once the sample has been taken? The UK government has been ordered on numerous occasions to destroy DNA samples that it collected in cases such as the OP, but they have instead retained. That is proof that it is already being abused.
LordofHats wrote: For one you don't give just anyone access. Then you don't make it clandestine because clandestine things just never seem to end well.
So instead we give wide access to the samples that must be cataloged, collected, stored, monitored, comply with a chain of evidence, and numerous other costly processes? Or how about we don't try to pressure 500 people into giving samples because we can't establish probable cause on one person?
Clandestine or not you are storing and have access to the most intimate genetic knowledge of a person's existence. The government has yet to prove it can even handle things it has responsibility for in compliance with the law and Constitution.
LordofHats wrote: Different eggs. I agree that the outrage over PRISM is overblown. Its a scandal, its illegal, and its wrong, but practically it's personally harmed nearly no one. PRISM is more alarming as a pointless illegal operation that seemingly had no purpose or stated goals which should raise the question of how such a thing was ever conceived let alone allowed to happen.
I suspect a DNA database actually has a wider potential door for real abuse to happen than PRISM ever did. I accept that.
Who agreed that the outrage over PRISM was overblown? I certainly don't.
Do you know how such a thing was conceived? In the same manner as the report in the OP. A likely suspect could not be found/probable cause not established so they had to circumvent the law.
And PRISM was so pointless that the government denied its existence, lied to the public, then when it was finally revealed fought tooth and nail to ensure that it didn't lose access to their ill-gotten data? If they are prepared to do that with something so "pointless" what will they do for such a treasure trove.
LordofHats wrote: Fear is a powerful thing. I find life easier when I ignore it and push on through. World would be a better place if other people did the same imo.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are proposing a rather strange course of action for someone who said just a few comments ago that corruption must always be fought. Or should it only be fought if it isn't scary? Sticking your head in the sand may work for ostriches, but that does not make the issue go away nor resolve itself.
LordofHats wrote: If they have power its because the people allowed them to have it. We allowed the NSA and CIA to be created (oh McCarthyism, the gift that never stopped giving), we allowed the massive expansion of the governments intelligence mechanisms over the past 40 years even though there were countless evident examples not to, we created the environment that allowed something like PRISM to pass.
The government isn't an alien. Its made of people and empowered by people. People can't claim political freedom while denying responsibility for their governments.
But you just said that it is better to ignore it. So which is it; do we fight the corruption, or do we ignore it because it is easier?
LordofHats wrote: I'm just gonna start counting now (1). I already said that abuse will happen, several times even. It's inevitable. I like more precise criminal investigations and bad guys going to jail more. A DNA database allows nothing that can't already happen and if anything centralizing the control of DNA testing reduces the chances of a frame job, not increase it (its hard to convince techies 100 miles away to support trumped up lies).
LordofHats wrote: (2). I think it's hilarious that I continually say abuse will happen (I say it in every post) but you keep saying I'm in denial that abuse will happen. It would be entertaining if my low expectations of critical reading abilities weren't being revealed to be too high. I need to find James Cameron. He's the only one who can raise the bar at this point.
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
2014/04/15 20:40:33
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave its judgement in the Marper case related to the controversial National DNA Database used by the UK Police for criminal investigations, stating the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles constitutes an infringement of the right for private life as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case was brought to court in 2004 by Michael Marper and a boy called "S" who, in separate, unrelated cases, had been taken their DNA after having been arrested. The charges were dropped in both cases but the UK police refused to destroy the DNA samples of the two individuals on the basis of the British law which allowed the retention of DNA and fingerprints. ECHR based its decision on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and decided that the indefinite retention by the UK Government and Police of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints was illegal. "In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society." The court dismissed all arguments brought by the UK Government, stating that "England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence". One of the main concerns expressed by the court was "the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons," the ruling adding that especially the retention of children's data following acquittal could be harmful, "given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society."
Following this decision, the UK Government is expected to change its present legislation which allows the police to retain samples of people who are not convicted.
According to reports, there more than 5 million samples presently stored in UK DNA database, out of which between 573,639 to 857,366 are from people with no criminal record. The creation of a DNA database has been questioned by many people. The Information Commissioners Office made a statement last year on this issue warning on the dangers of such a database: "There are significant risks associated with creating a universal database: it would be highly intrusive, and the more information collected about us, the greater the risk of false matches and other mistakes. The potential for technical and human error leading to serious consequences cannot be under estimated." Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve also warned on the dangers brought by the fact that the database can be checked by EU member countries against sensitive personal information. "There is a real risk that a disproportionate number of innocent British citizens will be sucked into foreign criminal investigations."
(The House of Lords has passed an amendment to the Counter Terrorism Bill, proposed on 4 November by Baroness Hanham that would force the Government to show to people how they can have their samples removed from the database.) Correction - This amendment was not adopted in the end by the UK Parliament. The act was adopted as the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
One possible approach of the UK Government, which would be accepted by ECHR, could be that of Scotland police. According to the Scottish Criminal Procedure Act, an individual's DNA samples and resulting profile must be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or is granted an absolute discharge. Biological samples and profiles may, however, be retained for three years in case the respective person is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences even if not convicted.
European Court of Human Rights - Grand Chamber Judgement - Case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (4.12.2008)
The UK government finally acted after this case, and decided that if they collected DNA from you and you aren't convicted the good news is that they will only keep it on file for six years
http://www.out-law.com/page-10516
The Government will remove from its DNA database the profiles of most adults arrested but not charged or convicted of an offence after six years. The Home Office announcement follows a ruling against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).11 Nov 2009
The proposed six-year limit excludes terrorism suspects, including juvenile suspects.
The ECHR ruled last December that the UK Government's "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of DNA information was not fair and was a "disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life", as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the wake of that judgment the Home Office said earlier this year that it planned to retain DNA profiles on innocent people for a maximum period of 12 years. Critics said that that Government's plans did not go far enough.
"These proposals are not quite two fingers to the European Court of Human Rights but they come pretty close," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, at the time.
Following a public consultation, which received more than 500 responses, the Home Office said today that it will remove from the National DNA Database the profiles of all adults arrested but not charged or convicted of any recordable offence after six years.
It will also remove profiles of 16 and 17 year-old juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of serious offences after six years; it will remove profiles of all other juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of a recordable offence after three years, regardless of age at arrest; and it will retain DNA profiles of all juveniles convicted of all but the most serious recordable offences for five years, and indefinitely for any further convictions.
The plans do not extend to those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or national security offences. According to the Home Office, "material taken under any regime (including the Terrorism Act 2000,) would be able to be retained beyond the 6-year point where there is a case for doing so on the basis of a case by case review on national security grounds."
"This would require a review by a senior police officer every two years – although data would be deleted if it became clear between reviews that its retention would no longer be necessary. The policy for juveniles would be similar but would take account of the differential treatment proposed for juveniles more generally."
The UK maintains the largest national DNA database in the world. The Government says it plays an essential role in fighting crime and providing justice for victims.
"Between April 1998 and September 2009 there were more than 410,589 crimes with DNA matches, providing the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender," said the Home Office in a statement today.
The proposals also include plans to destroy all DNA samples, such as blood, urine or mouth swabs used to create the DNA profile that is added to the database. The Government also plans to give police new powers to take DNA samples from anyone convicted abroad, or convicted before the creation of the DNA database in 1995.
The Government said that it intends to continue retaining the DNA profiles of all adults convicted of a recordable offence indefinitely, as well as the profiles of all juveniles convicted of the most serious offences, such as murder, rape, manslaughter and serious assault.
Under the proposals, fingerprints will be retained for the same time periods as DNA profiles.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson acknowledged a need for balance in the database.
"It is vital that we maintain the capacity of the DNA database to provide as many detections as possible by making sure the right people are on it," he said. "But we must balance this with the consideration of when other people should come off.
"I believe the proposals I am announcing today represent the most proportionate approach to DNA retention, as well as the most effective way of ensuring the database continues to help us tackle crime."
Liberty's Chakrabarti said today that she believes the Government is still not going far enough to protect human rights.
“It seems the Government still refuses to separate the innocent and the guilty and maintains a blanket approach to DNA retention," said Chakrabarti. "This grudgingly modified policy creates a repeat collision course with the Courts and Ministers look stubborn rather than effective or fair."
"Nobody disputes the value of DNA and anyone arrested can have a sample taken and compared to crime scenes," she said. "But stockpiling the intimate profiles of millions of innocent people is an unnecessary recipe for error and abuse."
"Politicians need to show us that they care about the presumption of innocence and not just when MPs expenses are being discussed," said Chakrabarti.
Liberty says that a correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned for a small number of serious offences, mainly involving sexual assault or violence.
2014/04/15 20:40:47
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
it always starts with violating peoples rights for the best possible reasons.
then slowly its used for less then best possible reasons.
the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril.
Its ignorant people who dont mind/cant see the tip of the wedge, and in fact support it, who end up ruining it for the rest of us.
2014/04/15 20:48:33
Subject: Re:French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Clandestine or not you are storing and have access to the most intimate genetic knowledge of a person's existence.
KK mentioned false positives earlier. A current problem facing any potential application of a vast national DNA database is the limitations of testing. A techie did an experiment in Arizona a few years back to see how many false positives she could produce using current testing methods (FBI says its a 1 in 43 billion chance). She did 1500 tests and got 12 false positives. Such a thing would be useless until technology has further advanced to make testing more accurate but I'm talking about the fact that
DNA isn't as unique as people think it is.
Having your DNA isn't the same as having you because your DNA is not the sum of your person and there's millions of Americans with the same DNA strands as you.
The government has yet to prove it can even handle things it has responsibility for in compliance with the law and Constitution.
Like that'll ever happen. Federal government has been battling what the Constitution says it can and can't do since day 1. Imagine it'll always be that way. Good thing we have so many lawyers
Who agreed that the outrage over PRISM was overblown? I certainly don't.
In the big list of government scandals, I'd rank PRISM pretty low on damage. I mean, the ATF gunwalking scandal actually got people killed. Mostly Mexicans, but they're people too.
You are entitled to your opinion. You are proposing a rather strange course of action for someone who said just a few comments ago that corruption must always be fought. Or should it only be fought if it isn't scary? Sticking your head in the sand may work for ostriches, but that does not make the issue go away nor resolve itself.
It's funny because when I see people say "it can be abused" and then stop I can only think they're sticking their heads in the sand. Everything can be abused. That statement is as useless as "I'm offended" and "the sky is blue."
But you just said that it is better to ignore it. So which is it; do we fight the corruption, or do we ignore it because it is easier?
(3). Read my first post.
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
(4) The fact government exists means there will be abuse (again, my first post). Establish a police force? There will be corruption eventually. Can't stop it from happening, but not having any police probably wouldn't end well so we're stuck with them and dealing with that corruption when it happens. Yin and yang.
My position is that corruption is inevitable unless you want to live without government. Accepting that, its perfectly rational to accept that corruption isn't a valid reason not to enact a policy so long as it is useful (like the NSA or CIA, which are crazy corrupt with huge budgets, and seemingly spend all their time enacting plans of questionable usefulness). I guess we could call my position intense pragmatism (which is an American philosophical concept, so I still get to be very American ).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/15 20:52:49
The UK government was taken to court in 2008 for refusing to destroy DNA samples from innocent people, including samples taken from minors.
On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave its judgement in the Marper case related to the controversial National DNA Database used by the UK Police for criminal investigations, stating the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles constitutes an infringement of the right for private life as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case was brought to court in 2004 by Michael Marper and a boy called "S" who, in separate, unrelated cases, had been taken their DNA after having been arrested. The charges were dropped in both cases but the UK police refused to destroy the DNA samples of the two individuals on the basis of the British law which allowed the retention of DNA and fingerprints. ECHR based its decision on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and decided that the indefinite retention by the UK Government and Police of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints was illegal. "In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society." The court dismissed all arguments brought by the UK Government, stating that "England, Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence". One of the main concerns expressed by the court was "the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons," the ruling adding that especially the retention of children's data following acquittal could be harmful, "given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society."
Following this decision, the UK Government is expected to change its present legislation which allows the police to retain samples of people who are not convicted.
According to reports, there more than 5 million samples presently stored in UK DNA database, out of which between 573,639 to 857,366 are from people with no criminal record. The creation of a DNA database has been questioned by many people. The Information Commissioners Office made a statement last year on this issue warning on the dangers of such a database: "There are significant risks associated with creating a universal database: it would be highly intrusive, and the more information collected about us, the greater the risk of false matches and other mistakes. The potential for technical and human error leading to serious consequences cannot be under estimated." Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve also warned on the dangers brought by the fact that the database can be checked by EU member countries against sensitive personal information. "There is a real risk that a disproportionate number of innocent British citizens will be sucked into foreign criminal investigations."
(The House of Lords has passed an amendment to the Counter Terrorism Bill, proposed on 4 November by Baroness Hanham that would force the Government to show to people how they can have their samples removed from the database.) Correction - This amendment was not adopted in the end by the UK Parliament. The act was adopted as the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
One possible approach of the UK Government, which would be accepted by ECHR, could be that of Scotland police. According to the Scottish Criminal Procedure Act, an individual's DNA samples and resulting profile must be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or is granted an absolute discharge. Biological samples and profiles may, however, be retained for three years in case the respective person is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences even if not convicted.
European Court of Human Rights - Grand Chamber Judgement - Case of S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (4.12.2008)
The UK government finally acted after this case, and decided that if they collected DNA from you and you aren't convicted the good news is that they will only keep it on file for six years
http://www.out-law.com/page-10516
The Government will remove from its DNA database the profiles of most adults arrested but not charged or convicted of an offence after six years. The Home Office announcement follows a ruling against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).11 Nov 2009
The proposed six-year limit excludes terrorism suspects, including juvenile suspects.
The ECHR ruled last December that the UK Government's "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of DNA information was not fair and was a "disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life", as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the wake of that judgment the Home Office said earlier this year that it planned to retain DNA profiles on innocent people for a maximum period of 12 years. Critics said that that Government's plans did not go far enough.
"These proposals are not quite two fingers to the European Court of Human Rights but they come pretty close," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, at the time.
Following a public consultation, which received more than 500 responses, the Home Office said today that it will remove from the National DNA Database the profiles of all adults arrested but not charged or convicted of any recordable offence after six years.
It will also remove profiles of 16 and 17 year-old juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of serious offences after six years; it will remove profiles of all other juveniles arrested but not charged or convicted of a recordable offence after three years, regardless of age at arrest; and it will retain DNA profiles of all juveniles convicted of all but the most serious recordable offences for five years, and indefinitely for any further convictions.
The plans do not extend to those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or national security offences. According to the Home Office, "material taken under any regime (including the Terrorism Act 2000,) would be able to be retained beyond the 6-year point where there is a case for doing so on the basis of a case by case review on national security grounds."
"This would require a review by a senior police officer every two years – although data would be deleted if it became clear between reviews that its retention would no longer be necessary. The policy for juveniles would be similar but would take account of the differential treatment proposed for juveniles more generally."
The UK maintains the largest national DNA database in the world. The Government says it plays an essential role in fighting crime and providing justice for victims.
"Between April 1998 and September 2009 there were more than 410,589 crimes with DNA matches, providing the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender," said the Home Office in a statement today.
The proposals also include plans to destroy all DNA samples, such as blood, urine or mouth swabs used to create the DNA profile that is added to the database. The Government also plans to give police new powers to take DNA samples from anyone convicted abroad, or convicted before the creation of the DNA database in 1995.
The Government said that it intends to continue retaining the DNA profiles of all adults convicted of a recordable offence indefinitely, as well as the profiles of all juveniles convicted of the most serious offences, such as murder, rape, manslaughter and serious assault.
Under the proposals, fingerprints will be retained for the same time periods as DNA profiles.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson acknowledged a need for balance in the database.
"It is vital that we maintain the capacity of the DNA database to provide as many detections as possible by making sure the right people are on it," he said. "But we must balance this with the consideration of when other people should come off.
"I believe the proposals I am announcing today represent the most proportionate approach to DNA retention, as well as the most effective way of ensuring the database continues to help us tackle crime."
Liberty's Chakrabarti said today that she believes the Government is still not going far enough to protect human rights.
“It seems the Government still refuses to separate the innocent and the guilty and maintains a blanket approach to DNA retention," said Chakrabarti. "This grudgingly modified policy creates a repeat collision course with the Courts and Ministers look stubborn rather than effective or fair."
"Nobody disputes the value of DNA and anyone arrested can have a sample taken and compared to crime scenes," she said. "But stockpiling the intimate profiles of millions of innocent people is an unnecessary recipe for error and abuse."
"Politicians need to show us that they care about the presumption of innocence and not just when MPs expenses are being discussed," said Chakrabarti.
Liberty says that a correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned for a small number of serious offences, mainly involving sexual assault or violence.
Thanks, so insaniak was wrong.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2014/04/15 20:54:53
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
it always starts with violating peoples rights for the best possible reasons.
then slowly its used for less then best possible reasons.
the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril.
Its ignorant people who dont mind/cant see the tip of the wedge, and in fact support it, who end up ruining it for the rest of us.
Yup. It started out with intercepting communications of Americans suspected of terrorism, and morphed into collecting meta data on everyone just in case. Here is how well UK terrorism law has been (ab)used;
To spy on a fisherman harvesting shellfish
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights
Spoiler:
A council that used controversial powers to spy on a family to check whether they were living in the correct school catchment area has done the same to keep an eye on local fishermen, it emerged yesterday.
Poole borough council is using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) - a law brought in to combat terrorism and cyber crime - to scrutinise people gathering shellfish.
The Dorset harbour has valuable populations of cockles, oysters, mussels and clams. Officials used the controversial law to make sure stocks were not being harmed or taken from banned areas.
Human rights campaigners said the revelations, which the council released under the Freedom of Information Act, illustrated why the Ripa law should be reformed.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "You do not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You can care about serious crime and terrorism without throwing away our personal privacy.
"The law must be reformed to require 'sign-off' by judges, not self-authorisation by over-zealous bureaucrats."
Last month the council admitted spying on a family to check they were living in the correct school catchment area. Jenny Paton, 39, Tim Joyce, 37, and their three daughters had their movements scrutinised and timed by an undercover official.
A detailed log of the family's activities was kept with statements including "curtains open and all lights on in premises", but no action was taken against them.
Since then it has emerged that councils are using the powers for a variety of offences, such as littering or dogs fouling pavements.
Some local authorities have used the act more than 100 times in the last 12 months to conduct surveillance, mainly against people suspected of being linked to rogue trading, benefit fraud and antisocial behaviour involving criminal damage.
Poole and other councils have argued that the act is not simply intended to target very serious criminals and terrorists.
According to the Home Office, the act "legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism".
Poole said it had used the act 17 times since 2005. In March of that year, it used the law to "ascertain which person caused damage to a barrier". In September 2006, Poole used it again to "identify persons continually vandalising door entry systems to ground floor flats".
In addition, the council used the powers to try to find out who was stealing from a tip and to monitor a property from which it thought drugs were being dealt.
On four occasions the powers were used to see if fishermen were gathering shellfish from a prohibited area in Poole harbour.
Council officials have said the surveillance lasted on average for two weeks for the purpose of "preventing or detecting crime or for preventing disorder".
Tim Martin, head of legal and democratic services at the council, said: "Illegal shellfish dredging can cause harm to the conservation of stocks in the harbour and could also lead to a potentially serious public health risk if illegally fished stock is not fit for consumption."
Councils in southern England have routinely used powers brought in to fight crime - including terrorism - to spy on people, the BBC has learned.
Figures obtained by BBC South show the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) was used more than 750 times by the councils in 2007/08.
The figures relate to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Dorset, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and West Sussex.
Overall, only one eighth of the council inquiries resulted in further action.
Under Ripa laws, councils can access phone and email records and use surveillance to detect or stop a criminal offence.
The BBC South investigation discovered councils in southern England had used Ripa to investigate matters including illegal taxis, dog fouling, child protection issues, benefit fraud, noise nuisance and planning enforcement.
The new council leadership has insisted the council will no longer use 'big brother' tactics
Gosport Borough Council spokeswoman
Local Government Association chairman Sir Simon Milton said overzealous use of the powers could alienate the public.
He has written to councils warning them about using the powers for "trivial offences" such as dog fouling.
The figures reveal Gosport Borough Council used Ripa to investigate whether illegal clam pickers were operating.
West Berkshire used the powers 192 times - 24 cases resulted in further action with police, courts, or other agencies, although it is not known if any resulted in convictions.
The figures were all obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
A Gosport Borough Council spokeswoman said Ripa had been used because "people were harvesting clams from an unclassified bed".
'Hugely disproportionate'
"This is illegal and if the clams had got into the food chain it could have proved potentially dangerous to the public, so officers decided that surveillance would be used to stop the practice.
"However the new council leadership has insisted the council will no longer use 'big brother' tactics in future."
She said Ripa would only be used for "really serious offences and only with prior member approval".
Meanwhile Poole Borough Council, which admitted in April it had spied on a family to see if they really did live in a school catchment area, said it was reviewing its use of the powers.
Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce
Tim Joyce and Jenny Paton were exonerated after surveillance
Tim Joyce and Jenny Paton and their children were put under surveillance by the council for more than two weeks without their knowledge.
Miss Paton described it as "hugely disproportionate". The couple were cleared of any wrongdoing.
At the time the council defended its actions, but on Monday a spokesperson said the use of such surveillance methods was "already scheduled to be reviewed by a council scrutiny committee in July".
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has begun an investigation over the council's use of the powers, after expressing "concerns".
The council also admitted using the powers on a total of 17 separate occasions since 2005, including to make sure fisherman were not illegally gathering shellfish in Poole Harbour.
The revelations have led to claims that councils are being vindictive and wasting taxpayers’ money.
Civil liberty groups are demmanding changes to the law so that councils will have to ask for judges’ consent before they can use covert surveillance.
The widespread use of the new Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was revealed in a survey, in which 46 councils admitted they had invoked the law 1,343 times.
However, all 468 local authorities in Britain have the power to track someone they think has – or intends to – commit a crime.
Some have already admitted using the law to spy on a family to check it lived in the right school catchment area and to check on children trying to buy alcohol.
Rights group Privacy International demanded a ‘root and branch review’ of the act.
Director Simon Davies said: ‘Local authorities can be very petty and vindictive and they can become obsessed with issues like dog fouling, and there can be a lack of judgment.’
Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: ‘The law must be reformed to req- uire sign-off by judges not self-author- isation by over-zealous bureaucrats.’
But chairman of the Local Government Association Sir Simon Milton insisted councils were using ‘every weapon in their arsenal to catch the rogue traders, doorstep criminals and scam artists who cheat the taxpayer and prey on the vulnerable and the elderly’.
South Lanarkshire Council placed staff members suspected of wrongdoing under surveillance using the powers, which were introduced to combat serious crime and terrorism.
The legislation allows local authorities to install hidden cameras, intercept emails and secretly follow people who are suspected of breaking the law.
An inspection by the UK Government's Office of ÂSurveillance Commissioners found that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act (RIPSA) had been used three times against employees in the last three years.
Bosses at South Lanarkshire were warned not to use the powers against their own staff in future as they were not introduced for that purpose.
Staff at the council have now been told that the practice will cease.
In a report to councillors, Paul Manning, the council's executive director of finance and corporate resources, said: "The inspector noted that three applications were in relation to surveillance of council employees.
"He stated that RIPSA should only be engaged when the council is acting in relation to its core functions and recommended that we cease to use RIPSA in Ârelation to surveillance of our employees.
"It has been agreed with the head of personnel services that RIPSA will no longer be used for this purpose but that surveillance of employees should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as that involved in RIPSA applications.
"A separate set of documentation has been prepared for these purposes which removes reference to RIPSA but otherwise requires the same tests of necessity and proportionality to be met. The unions have been consulted and are in agreement with this action."
Under RIPSA legislation, Âcouncils are able to use directed surveillance, such as the bugging or photographing of someone in a public place, or undercover agents to gather evidence.
Councils do not need to go to court but can green light their own covert operations.
Scottish local authorities have used the powers more than 1500 times over the last five years.
However, they have previously been criticised for launching spying operations for trivial reasons.
Probes have been launched into loud televisions, slamming doors, vandalised washing lines and people running up and down stairs. Others targeted have included litter louts, flytippers and those who fail to clean up after their dogs.
Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, called for officials to be held to account for approving the use of the powers to carry out surveillance on staff at the council.
He said: "Undercover surveillance is not something to be used lightly and these serious powers were not introduced for council managers to snoop on their staff.
"Organisations shouldn't be able to approve their own surveillance operations because it leads to exactly this kind of abuse.
"Of course the central question is that a council officer had to sign off on these operations as necessary and proportionate when they were clearly not. They should be held to account for that failure."
Paul Manning, the authority's Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Resources, said: "The council has rigorous standards in place for any investigation concerning employees.
"After its routine inspection last year the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) issued a positive report which stated that 'the Council has a professional approach in relation to the use of RIPSA legislation and has appropriate systems and processes in place to conduct covert activity effectively.'
"The OSC recommended four minor changes to the protocols, including that RIPSA should not be used if the council has to carry out surveillance of employees. There was no suggestion that any inappropriate surveillance had been done. Rather, the recommendation simply suggested such surveillance should not be under reference to RIPSA.
"We agreed these changes but in doing so took steps to ensure that any surveillance of employees should remain subject to the same level of scrutiny that is applied to RIPSA applications. That offers employees the same levels of protection as the general public, and this was agreed with the trades unions when the changes were made following the OSC inspection."
Cambridgeshire County Council adopted surveillance techniques to bring Rashmi and Dips Solanki, who run the general store in Melbourn, to court after officials discovered that a number of children were working for the store as paper boys.
The Solankis now have a criminal record, after being found guilty at Cambridge Magistrates' Court of employing delivery boys without a valid permit. They had denied the charges, claiming that there had been a simple mix-up over paperwork.
Afterwards, they hit out at the council for monitoring them and their paper boys by using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which was drawn up to help authorities prevent serious crime, including terrorism.
Mrs Solanki, the former sub postmistress for the village, said: "It's ridiculous. We only found out they had been spying on us when we heard about it in court.
"It was a complete waste of everyone's time and came out of confusion over paperwork.
"At the end of the day it could have all been easily sorted out if the council had just spoken to us."
But the council defended its use of the powers to investigate the couple.
A spokesman said: "Officers did use RIPA powers to investigate this case. We are required to follow the law that those employing children should have a valid work permit.
"We were simply enforcing the law."
Simon Reeve, prosecuting, told the court the Solankis ignored letters and visits from a child employment officer informing them that they could only employ children with a valid permit.
Permits for paper boys or girls should be approved by the child's parents, school and local education authority. The court was told eight applications for work permits had been sent to the children's school.
Three had been signed, five had not.
The Solankis were handed six-month conditional discharges.
Mrs Solanki said: "It should never have gone to court. The whole thing was really stupid. We just want to put it behind us now."
Andrew Lansley, the Tory MP for South Cambridgeshire, said: "These powers should only be used for the scope they were intended, which is to tackle serious crime and terrorism."
RIPA laws were recently used by Cambridge City Council to monitor punt operators using CCTV and to count beggars in the city centre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: KK mentioned false positives earlier. A current problem facing any potential application of a vast national DNA database is the limitations of testing. A techie did an experiment in Arizona a few years back to see how many false positives she could produce using current testing methods (FBI says its a 1 in 43 billion chance). She did 1500 tests and got 12 false positives. Such a thing would be useless until technology has further advanced to make testing more accurate but I'm talking about the fact that
DNA isn't as unique as people think it is.
Having your DNA isn't the same as having you because your DNA is not the sum of your person and there's millions of Americans with the same DNA strands as you.
I remember a very similar argument in relation to meta data. That the government wasn't actually reading your emails, just building up a profile of where you when, when you were there, how often you were there, who you contacted, how long you contacted that person for, etc. Nothing invasive about that at all.....
If there are so many people with the same DNA strands as me then surely having my DNA is pointless and there should never be any cause for them to request it, much less store it etc. at great expense
LordofHats wrote: Like that'll ever happen. Federal government has been battling what the Constitution says it can and can't do since day 1. Imagine it'll always be that way. Good thing we have so many lawyers
That is such a fine example of missing the point I don't even know where to begin
LordofHats wrote: In the big list of government scandals, I'd rank PRISM pretty low on damage. I mean, the ATF gunwalking scandal actually got people killed. Mostly Mexicans, but they're people too.
You're right. Violating the rights of just about every American who has ever sent an email, text message, made a phone call, etc. is no big deal really. . .
LordofHats wrote: It's funny because when I see people say "it can be abused" and then stop I can only think they're sticking their heads in the sand. Everything can be abused. That statement is as useless as "I'm offended" and "the sky is blue."
"I'm offended" is meaningless because it is now used as a tool to silence an opposing point of view
"The sky is blue" is often a statement that is accepted as factually correct
Saying the government is liable to abuse new powers (as well as old) is a statement well founded on a wealth of evidence that continues to grow rather than diminish
And yet in spite of saying that abuse will occur you stated that you were in favour of the government having access to the DNA samples, then gave continued examples of government corruption. The only thing that you have been consistent in has been your inconsistency.
(4) The fact government exists means there will be abuse (again, my first post). Establish a police force? There will be corruption eventually. Can't stop it from happening, but not having any police probably wouldn't end well so we're stuck with them and dealing with that corruption when it happens. Yin and yang.
My position is that corruption is inevitable unless you want to live without government. Accepting that, its perfectly rational to accept that corruption isn't a valid reason not to enact a policy so long as it is useful (like the NSA or CIA, which are crazy corrupt with huge budgets, and seemingly spend all their time enacting plans of questionable usefulness). I guess we could call my position intense pragmatism (which is an American philosophical concept, so I still get to be very American ).
I would not describe your position as pragmatic. Conflicted and inconsistent yes, trying to apply absolutes to one are while seeing other parts of the system as various shades of grey, yes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/15 21:15:51
2014/04/15 21:37:37
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
I remember a very similar argument in relation to meta data. That the government wasn't actually reading your emails, just building up a profile of where you when, when you were there, how often you were there, who you contacted, how long you contacted that person for, etc. Nothing invasive about that at all.....
Yeah and if you're a marketing firm, that data is really valuable. I question the utility of such a thing to a government. Even a tyrannical one. I never said it wasn't invasive, of course it was. But your daily schedule ain't that fantastic and if the government wants my porn stash I'm happy to share (the NSA must be bored doing something so menial by now they could use the break).
EDIT: And thats an invitation NSA. Because come on, like PRISM is the only gak you guys have going on in your walls.
If there are so many people with the same DNA strands as me then surely having my DNA is pointless and there should never be any cause for them to request it, much less store it etc. at great expense
In the same way that your opinion isn't so special. Its the same one as millions of other people. Sure it identifies you but its not like it defines everything of your being either. A sufficiently precise test can narrow down the population so much that even if a few false positives pop up, the application of process of elimination would statistically leave only 1 person. We just need the technology and to get the police to start using their god damn common sense more often.
That is such a fine example of missing the point I don't even know where to begin
It's precisely on point. No government at any point in history has managed to perfectly live up to its responsibilities. Probably because people are imperfect (which again, my entire premise here, so 5). So congratulations. You've stated the obvious and I agree with the obvious because its obvious. How insightful.
You're right. Violating the rights of just about every American who has ever sent an email, text message, made a phone call, etc. is no big deal really. . .
Oh no, they violated your rights. Almost like we should do something about that... Like getting rid of the NSA since they're more trouble than they're worth (6). On the scale of evil, I rank a lot of things worse than PRISM. PRISM is insulting and a waste of money, but its not up to snuff with Tuskegee let alone a lot of the other gak the US Government has done in its tenure.
"I'm offended" is meaningless because it is now used as a tool to silence an opposing point of view
"The sky is blue" is often a statement that is accepted as factually correct
Saying the government is liable to abuse new powers (as well as old) is a statement well founded on a wealth of evidence that continues to grow rather than diminish
It's almost like I'm accusing you of contribution nothing to the conversation beyond a factual statement taken as being true that you throw out as an attempt to get the other side to shut up because you find yourself unable to come up with anything else or are incapable of realizing that the statement is agreed to and continuing to repeat it is just a failure of comprehension.
Conflicted and inconsistent yes, trying to apply absolutes to one are while seeing other parts of the system as various shades of grey, yes.
Why does it have to be consistent (assuming it isn't)? Because that fits easier into a box? Pft. You can't put me in a box man;
The position is staggeringly consistent. Corruption is a necessary evil of government. If you accept the existence of government then you accept having to tackle corruption (an unending battle) and the accusation that something will be abused becomes a nonsense statement. It's the government. Anything it does can be abused. Saying it is contributing the obvious. The word is just thrown out in place of "I don't like that" because abuse is a scary word that makes it seem like your conflict is more than just one of personal opinion (not that I have issues with differing opinion, but I do have a problem with people dressing up opinion in a shining cloak of righteousness).
Kind of sums it up. Should lead with that next time.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/15 21:43:51
LordofHats wrote: Yeah and if you're a marketing firm, that data is really valuable. I question the utility of such a thing to a government. Even a tyrannical one. I never said it wasn't invasive, of course it was. But your daily schedule ain't that fantastic and if the government wants my porn stash I'm happy to share (the NSA must be bored doing something so menial by now they could use the break).
EDIT: And thats an invitation NSA. Because come on, like PRISM is the only gak you guys have going on in your walls.
You honestly can't envision what use it would be to a government agency to be able to make predictions based off your genetics for your diseases, behaviours, etc? Again - meta data is hugely boring yet the NSA invested a vast amount of time and resources into collected, analyzing, storing, and maintaining their records.
LordofHats wrote: In the same way that your opinion isn't so special. Its the same one as millions of other people. Sure it identifies you but its not like it defines everything of your being either. A sufficiently precise test can narrow down the population so much that even if a few false positives pop up, the application of process of elimination would statistically leave only 1 person. We just need the technology and to get the police to start using their god damn common sense more often.
So it is a useful thing to have on record after all. Do you see what I mean about your consistent inconsistency? It makes it difficult to have a conversation when someone changes their position every time the direction of the wind changes.
No. We need the police to use their investigatory powers. Rounding up 500 people because they were in the same building as a crime is not probable cause, and saying "DNA sample or else you are a suspect" is not common sense - unless we use the emerging definition of common sense, which is 'to sign away your rights'
LordofHats wrote: It's precisely on point. No government at any point in history has managed to perfectly live up to its responsibilities. Probably because people are imperfect (which again, my entire premise here, so 5). So congratulations. You've stated the obvious and I agree with the obvious because its obvious. How insightful.
Well done. You managed to get my disdain for the idea of Utopia that could have been gleaned from several responses to other posters. I never once said that I expect a government to "perfectly live up to its responsibilities" so you can drop the strawman. I do expect them to behave in a manner compatible with their legal powers and the Constitution. As we have seen they are falling short of that most basic test.
LordofHats wrote: Oh no, they violated your rights. Almost like we should do something about that... Like getting rid of the NSA since they're more trouble than they're worth (6). On the scale of evil, I rank a lot of things worse than PRISM. PRISM is insulting and a waste of money, but its not up to snuff with Tuskegee let alone a lot of the other gak the US Government has done in its tenure.
That is a beautiful example of whataboutery.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like I'm accusing you of contribution nothing to the conversation beyond a factual statement taken as being true that you throw out as an attempt to get the other side to shut up because you find yourself unable to come up with anything else or are incapable of realizing that the statement is agreed to and continuing to repeat it is just a failure of comprehension.
Maybe if your position was not so contradictory, sorry - pragmatic- there would be a lot less confusion
LordofHats wrote: Why does it have to be consistent (assuming it isn't)? Because that fits easier into a box? Pft. You can't put me in a box man;
The position is staggeringly consistent. Corruption is a necessary evil of government. If you accept the existence of government then you accept having to tackle corruption (an unending battle) and the accusation that something will be abused becomes a nonsense statement thrown out in place of "I don't like that" because abuse is a scary word that makes it seem like your conflict is more than just one of personal opinion (not that I have issues with differing opinion, but I do have a problem with people dressing up opinion in a shining cloak of righteousness).
Kind of sums it up. Should lead with that next time.
There has to be at least some level of consistency because if you aren't sure what you're saying or what point you want to try and get across it makes having any sort of discussion somewhat tricky. On the one hand you're saying that corruption must be fought, then you're saying to ignore it and get on with life; that governments can be trusted with DNA being given to an unspecified agency because it will not be abused, but the NSA and CIA need dismantled because they abuse their power.
Had I just said that corruption may occur then perhaps I would have sympathy for your argument. However given the fact that I presented clear examples of government corruption (that you agreed with) and showed a pattern of disregard for individual liberties I think that I have managed to substantiate my position
2014/04/15 22:52:27
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
You honestly can't envision what use it would be to a government agency to be able to make predictions based off your genetics for your diseases, behaviours, etc? Again - meta data is hugely boring yet the NSA invested a vast amount of time and resources into collected, analyzing, storing, and maintaining their records.
For what? Some grand conspiracy the purge the undesirables? Please. The NSA has gather a massive amount of ultimately useless information, no doubt as part of some ill conceived plan to protect the American people. It's ends justify the means except the end doesn't even achieve the goal they wanted in the first place which is the story of both the CIA and the NSA going on 70 years now. And that just makes the means even more mind numbing. I could at least say "well you get points for trying" if the end goal was one that actually worked but all that money and they can't even get that bit right.
Do you see what I mean about your consistent inconsistency? It makes it difficult to have a conversation when someone changes their position every time the direction of the wind changes.
I haven't changed it you just seem to miss every pitch.
We need the police to use their investigatory powers.
Then you are accepting the inevitable fact that sooner or later, they'll abuse it. Whether you realize it or not, it is what you've done. If you give someone power you have to be prepared for the inevitable fact that someone will abuse it. Instead of saying "we can't have police they'll abuse their power" we say "we need police, we'll deal with the abuse when it happens." Glad to see that you only reject my argument when it doesn't suit your fancy.
"DNA sample or else you are a suspect"
Part of the reason the cops have such a hard time is because its hard dealing with double standards. "Volunteer your DNA so we can eliminate you, no? Okay have a nice day" sounds nice until later down the road it's revealed that one of the people who said no actually did it then they have to field questions about why they didn't check out everyone who said no as a precaution.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. So we end up with bumbling police forces that stumble over their words and do stupid things.
I do expect them to behave in a manner compatible with their legal powers and the Constitution.
See, you say you disdain utopia, and then you say this. Inconsistency much? I accept that this will never happen because the world isn't perfect. I'm just not going to throw ideas out the window while saying that and holding up lofty ideals about what the government should do but isn't going to do. The best any of us can hope for is to push a minimal standard (which is basically the point of the Bill of Rights) but that doesn't mean we can kick back and just do nothing. Unless pushed back, the government will overstep its bounds.
On the one hand you're saying that corruption must be fought, then you're saying to ignore it and get on with life;
(7) Accept the reality of the world that corruption is inevitable. Battle it when it happens. Be prepared that it'll happen again because it will. Once that is a reality that is accepted, the risk of abuse ceases to be a meaningful argument not to do something, seeing as your already resolved to battling the inevitable outcome. EDIT: In this I'm saying that the risk of abuse is not a meaningful argument in itself not to grant power because they already have power and they're already abusing it.
I guess calling me inconsistent is easier than polishing comprehensive reading. I should make combo multipliers. Make a leader board.
the NSA and CIA need dismantled because they abuse their power.
(8) They need dismantling because of their abuse of power and lack of useful contributions to society (Arming and training the Afghanis fighting the USSR worked out so well for us 20 years later didn't it? Best part is that they didn't even need the help!). I doubt anyone could meaningfully argue that with the proper technological sophistication, a national DNA database wouldn't result in criminals getting convicted. That's never really been in question.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/15 23:06:36
Just to be that guy, if the lights were out and the victim couldn't identify the attacker, why are they only trying the men (assuming that they don't know something we don't)?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/04/15 23:11:08
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
I would assume that spermicide was found or the victim was at least able to indentified her attacker as a male. Maybe both. It should be obvious from basic forensics in what manner the victim was attacked.
I imagine the only way the attacker's sex could be in question is if the victim was violated with an object rather than an appendage but then what are they comparing the DNA they're collecting to?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/15 23:12:23
LordofHats wrote: I would assume that spermicide was found or the victim was at least able to indentified her attacker as a male. Maybe both. It should be obvious from basic forensics in what manner the victim was attacked.
I imagine the only way the attacker's sex could be in question is if the victim was violated with an object rather than an appendage but then what are they comparing the DNA they're collecting to?
Hair, saliva, god-knows-what? They probably know what they're doing, I was just throwing the thought out.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2014/04/15 23:46:04
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Insaniak had missed that you were responding to the UK issue, rather than the actual topic.
easysauce wrote: the saying "those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither, and will lose both" is true, and you ignore the lessons of history at your own, and everyone elses, peril..
How does volunteering for a DNA test impinge on your freedom?
2014/04/16 02:06:35
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them. Regardless of what, if any, action is taken, the threat is there. And remember, this threat is being made against over 400 minors, not just adults.
That is coercion. It is thuggery. It is lazy police work.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2014/04/16 02:21:05
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them.
Well, yes... Again, it would mean that police would quickly find that there is no actual evidence implicating them, at which point they would move on.
Voluntarily taking the test just means you can skip that part.
2014/04/16 03:58:04
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
CptJake wrote: Because they are not truly being asked to volunteer. They are being told, volunteer or you get treated like a suspect, which strongly implies some action will be taken against them. Regardless of what, if any, action is taken, the threat is there. And remember, this threat is being made against over 400 minors, not just adults.
That is coercion. It is thuggery. It is lazy police work.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2014/04/16 04:24:40
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime? Lets face it , that is the reason for the DNA test, no other reason is given for them taking it. If it is voluntary then refusing it cannot be looked on as suspicious otherwise there is coercion involved. It's take it or be treated as a suspect.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2014/04/16 04:49:46
Subject: Re:French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
Bullockist wrote: Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime?
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 04:50:10
2014/04/16 05:17:22
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
That's not really the point. As far as the police know, maybe you really have an objection, or maybe you're not brain dead enough to hand over DNA after raping someone. They have no idea. Only way to find out is to investigate (I assume we pay them for this). EDIT: And that's not assuming guilt. Say they didn't ask for volunteers at all. Well then everyone is a suspect and they're checking everyone anyway.
The general public equates the terms suspect, perpetrator, and accused. A suspect is not accused of a crime. Its merely someone the police have think might have committed a crime, which come on. That's such a broad thing that getting worked up about it says more about the people making an outcry over it than it does about the cops. Really all it says is that as far as police know you had opportunity, and who doesn't? A lot of jurisdictions don't even use the term anymore (hasn't stopped news outlets from using it though, so yeah. Bllame the media).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/16 05:20:14
Bullockist wrote: Acting suspiciously is being in a locale about the time of the crime?
No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
You make it sound trite, but at the end of the day, why ever presume anyone is innocent ever? I mean, we COULD implant everyone with GPS that reports back to a global server. We really could, it's not as cost prohibitive as you might think it would be.
I could build a gps device that would fit in an Altoids tin for less than 50 USD, that would report my location from any open wireless signal within range. I could do that literally tomorrow. And that's just some random guy slapping together whatever hobbyist electronics are available on the consumer market. A mass produced version of that which operated on a cellular signal would be a fraction of that. We could make it a requirement of whatever national ID/drivers license/Citizen Card you wanted to make it a part of My question is, with all the crimes that would preven.. err, allow us to immediately determine the responsible party of after they are committed, why don't we?
The phone companies already know where your phone is, with a time stamp, to a good enough accuracy that the info can be used for criminal investigations. I mean that it can place your phone close enough to the where and when of a crime that you can be ruled in as a suspect.
insaniak wrote: No, acting suspiciously is when the police say 'Hey, we need some help to solve this rape case, so we're asking people to volunteer for DNA testing' and you respond with 'No! My Freedoms! Get a warrant, pig!'
Because your right to choose who gets to handle your saliva is more important than bringing a rapist to justice.
It is, yes. My right to privacy, due process, and freedom from undue search and seizure is also more important than stopping a sex trade ring, an insurance fraud scam, an armed robbery, 9/11 Part Two, drunk driving, or any other crime you care to name.
2014/04/16 08:38:35
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
LordofHats wrote: For what? Some grand conspiracy the purge the undesirables? Please. The NSA has gather a massive amount of ultimately useless information, no doubt as part of some ill conceived plan to protect the American people. It's ends justify the means except the end doesn't even achieve the goal they wanted in the first place which is the story of both the CIA and the NSA going on 70 years now. And that just makes the means even more mind numbing. I could at least say "well you get points for trying" if the end goal was one that actually worked but all that money and they can't even get that bit right.
Strawman much? I don't recall making any mention of purges
You do know that constantly pointing you how inept and abusive the NSA and CIA are in the realm of rights and liberty strengthens my argument, right?
LordofHats wrote: I haven't changed it you just seem to miss every pitch.
When the pitch breathlessly goes from we must fight corruption, to lets all stick our heads in the sand it makes it hard to hit
LordofHats wrote: Then you are accepting the inevitable fact that sooner or later, they'll abuse it. Whether you realize it or not, it is what you've done. If you give someone power you have to be prepared for the inevitable fact that someone will abuse it. Instead of saying "we can't have police they'll abuse their power" we say "we need police, we'll deal with the abuse when it happens." Glad to see that you only reject my argument when it doesn't suit your fancy.
Because asking that the police exercise their powers lawfully and investigate a crime without violating the rights of 500 people who were in the same building as a crime is a clear acceptance that abuse will occur....
LordofHats wrote: Part of the reason the cops have such a hard time is because its hard dealing with double standards. "Volunteer your DNA so we can eliminate you, no? Okay have a nice day" sounds nice until later down the road it's revealed that one of the people who said no actually did it then they have to field questions about why they didn't check out everyone who said no as a precaution.
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. So we end up with bumbling police forces that stumble over their words and do stupid things.
Except they didn't say that. What they said was give us your DNA or you are a suspect.
LordofHats wrote: See, you say you disdain utopia, and then you say this. Inconsistency much? I accept that this will never happen because the world isn't perfect. I'm just not going to throw ideas out the window while saying that and holding up lofty ideals about what the government should do but isn't going to do. The best any of us can hope for is to push a minimal standard (which is basically the point of the Bill of Rights) but that doesn't mean we can kick back and just do nothing. Unless pushed back, the government will overstep its bounds.
Behaving within legal bounds is not utopian, that is the reason why there are penalties for transgression.
LordofHats wrote: (7) Accept the reality of the world that corruption is inevitable. Battle it when it happens. Be prepared that it'll happen again because it will. Once that is a reality that is accepted, the risk of abuse ceases to be a meaningful argument not to do something, seeing as your already resolved to battling the inevitable outcome. EDIT: In this I'm saying that the risk of abuse is not a meaningful argument in itself not to grant power because they already have power and they're already abusing it.
So corruption will happen. So remind me why we willingly allow it to happen instead of the much more difficult fight of trying to curb its excesses? Case in point - the NSA. Should they ever have been allowed to intercept data on US citizens with no probable cause? No. What happened? They did just this, and elected representatives refused to rein them in.
LordofHats wrote: I guess calling me inconsistent is easier than polishing comprehensive reading. I should make combo multipliers. Make a leader board.
Or I could give examples of inconsistencies, like I have been.
LordofHats wrote: (8) They need dismantling because of their abuse of power and lack of useful contributions to society (Arming and training the Afghanis fighting the USSR worked out so well for us 20 years later didn't it? Best part is that they didn't even need the help!). I doubt anyone could meaningfully argue that with the proper technological sophistication, a national DNA database wouldn't result in criminals getting convicted. That's never really been in question.
No one is arguing against criminals being convicted. What is being argued against is how many individual rights get curtailed or sacrificed to get there.
2014/04/16 09:09:40
Subject: French school to test DNA of all 500 male pupils and teachers
).
