An idea that might reduce 99.9% of all murders/rape

nice1franko

would it not be very easy to frame someone then by leaving a few of the hairs or somethin at a crime scene?

humanji

robinph wrote: »

Of course it would escalate.

Sure they already have your date of birth and your photo from you passport so why not let them have your fingerprints and some biometric details as well?
...
If they have those details then wheres the harm in having your DNA to add to what they already have?
...
Well they have your DNA now so wheres the harm in letting the bank and insurance have those details as well, it's all to stop "terrorism" you know?
...
Why not do all your shopping using those biometric details they now have, it's only a little different from what they already have access to anyway and will make your life much easier?
...
We may as well have GPS implants now as well, will make things much quicker going through borders and doing your shopping if they know who you are instantly once you land or walk into the shop.
...

It would soon become 1984.

You see, you're just assuming people will lie down and let that sort of thing happen. Banks and insurance companies have no need for those details, so why let them have them? Who would let that happen? Not even our government would let that happen, and they're f*ckwits.

Why would you need bimetric details to do your shopping? And having GPS implants is the realms of fantasy.

But lets say you let them do all this. What's the problem then? Granted, as said above, insurance companies knowing any genetic problems can be abused. But what else? Do we have to assume that if this happens, then every company in the world will abuse this information? Because that's the way it seems your arguments are going. Whta if it's done correctly and no details are leaked? Any real problems there?

HelterSkelter

humanji wrote: »

Are we in America? Do we have the same government? The US people don't have a lot of power over what laws get passed. In Ireland we do.

Seems like the US have a lot of say over the laws we pass also. McDowell passed a very scary law called the "instruments of agreement". From Irish Examiner....

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/07/21/story463216798.asp

By Dan Buckley
US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week.Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.

Under 'instruments of agreement' signed last week by Justice Minister Michael McDowell, Ireland and the US pledged mutual co-operation in the investigation of criminal activity. It is primarily designed to assist America's so-called 'war on terror' in the wake of the September 11 atrocities.

The deal was condemned yesterday by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) as "an appalling signal of how the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations". The ICCL said it appeared to go far beyond even what has been agreed between EU countries.

On signing the agreement, the minister said that "the international community must do everything it can to combat terrorism with every means at its disposal.

"Ireland will not be found wanting," he added.

The treaty will give effect to agreements on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition signed by the EU and the US in June 2003. These are aimed at building on mutual assistance and extradition arrangements.

Although the Department of Justice insists that the arrangement merely updates existing agreements, it goes much further. The US may ask Irish authorities:

To track down people in Ireland.

Transfer prisoners in Irish custody to the US.

Carry out searches and seize evidence on behalf of the US Government.

It also allows US authorities access to an Irish suspect's confidential bank information. The Irish authorities must keep all these activities secret if asked to do so by the US.

The person who will request co-operation is US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the man who, as White House counsel, instigated the notorious 'torture memo' to US President George W Bush which advised how far CIA agents could go in torturing prisoners. The person to whom the request is sent is the Minister for Justice.

About 20,000 immigrants, who have not been charged with any crime, are currently in prison in the US. In two recent US Supreme Court cases, the US Government argued that US citizens could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge if the president designated them as "enemy combatants".

ICCL director Aisling Reidy said: "An extraordinary aspect to this treaty is, despite its scope and its potential to violate basic constitutional and human rights, that all this happened without debate or transparency.

"To agree to give such powers to a government which has allowed detention of its own citizens without access to a lawyer for over a year, which has legitimised Guantanamo Bay and the interrogation techniques there, without public debate, is an appalling signal of how highly or not the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations."

The Department of Justice said it was wrong to say the treaty happened without debate, as the agreements update and supplement existing arrangements, and the EU-US agreement has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas four times since December 2002.

A spokesperson also rejected that the measures go beyond what was agreed between EU countries.

Legislation will be required to give effect to some elements of the Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument. The necessary provisions will be contained in the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Bill which Mr McDowell expects to publish shortly.

seamus

humanji wrote: »

But what if an illegitimate company got your bank account details? Or your credit card details? Or your social security details? All of these can be useful in the wrong hands yet we don't get too worried about them.

Well, we do get worried about it. But it's not that consequential. I can change my ATM PIN, cut up my credit card and I can get my money back. I can't change my DNA profile or claim I wasn't somewhere when my DNA is everywhere in that place.

Seriously, if this became a reality, the black market high-tech industry that would grow around it would be unreal. There'd be companies, given a DNA profile, who could recreate a small vial of viable organic material with that DNA signature. A whole cloned person is many years away. Small samples of simple cells aren't.

I agree that a measure like this probably wouldn't impact most people, they'd live their lives oblivious and without ever being at the receiving end of some unscrupulous operator. It's the sheer scale of what you could do with this information that makes it so much more dangerous than bank records or PPS numbers.

WindSock

I always thought it was a good idea. It has more positive points than negative. In fact the only negative points I can see are usually based on a paranoid delusional conspiracy about politicians actually giving two hoots about what they can do with my DNA. So far, I actually can't see what else they would use it for.
Electronic GPS tagging, now thats a different story. If China rule the world soon (which they will) Imagaine what it would be like. Now that would be scary.

Latchy

QUOTE=Thaedydal;Are you saying they are not and like in islamic states everywoman should be 'escorted' by a male relative ?

Are the streets safe ? i am preaching common sense .....

What next will you ask that your daughter wears 'modest' clothing, sure why not get her an abba for christmas.

sarcasim hmmmmm......

The chances are statistically in this country that if she is raped it will someone she knows or date rape and that does not happen down darken alleys.

As sombody pointed out women get raped anywere/everywere , in fields, lanes, alleys , parks, bed rooms , hotel rooms ,your living room......perhaps they are the ones that go unreported ...

humanji

seamus wrote: »

Seriously, if this became a reality, the black market high-tech industry that would grow around it would be unreal. There'd be companies, given a DNA profile, who could recreate a small vial of viable organic material with that DNA signature. A whole cloned person is many years away. Small samples of simple cells aren't.

But it's not a matter of if it becomes a reality, but when. This will happen and the blackmarket will boom with technology that can abuse the knowledge of our DNA. It can't be stopped, but it can be curbed. If people start planning on how to use and safeguard this sort of information then we can at least start a step ahead of those who would use us. Sadly, the reality is, is that Ireland will be last in line to use anything like this. We've a better chance of getting the e-voting up and running :rolleyes:

robinph

humanji wrote: »

You see, you're just assuming people will lie down and let that sort of thing happen. Banks and insurance companies have no need for those details, so why let them have them? Who would let that happen? Not even our government would let that happen, and they're f*ckwits.

Well it seems that you are happy to just lie down and let the first part happen. Once the government have your DNA details then why not let the banks have them as well it will only make you accounts "safer" and surely do something to prevent "terrorism" as well.

humanji wrote: »

Why would you need bimetric details to do your shopping? And having GPS implants is the realms of fantasy.

But lets say you let them do all this. What's the problem then? Granted, as said above, insurance companies knowing any genetic problems can be abused. But what else? Do we have to assume that if this happens, then every company in the world will abuse this information? Because that's the way it seems your arguments are going. Whta if it's done correctly and no details are leaked? Any real problems there?

Do you really think that no company that might eventually be granted access to the information would never miss use it or have a security leak?

Can you really not see how one thing would easily lead onto the next as far as them gaining extra detail about you and then what they are allowed to do with that information. Your quite right that they would never be able to bring in it all at once, but one step at a time and each one only a very minor change from what they had before then what is there to complain about each time?

humanji

I can see that it can happen, but you're assuming that it MUST happen. Any system can be corrupted in the wrong hands. That doesn't mean it will be. But I dont' agree that letting the government record your DNA means that all companies will exploit this. You're assuming the worst without thinking that it may not happen. That's why these things have to be planned. By the end or your lifetime, your DNA will be recorded, whether you like it or not. IT's best to be prepared and not just assume the worst.

robinph

Of course is may not happen, but the one sure way to ensure that the data is not used for means that it is not intended is not not let them have it in the first place. Once the DNA database has been created you cannot turn back the clock on it. The data will already be out there and I cannot see how they would suddenly be able to create such a perfect system that nothing will ever go wrong in it's usage.

dame

Hmm, over two and a half hours, 60 replies and lots of comment...but nobody here reads the Sunday Times Magazine obviously. I was waiting to see which of you bright sparks :rolleyes: would quote it to help in your anti-information-storage case. You'd rather read tabloids and "Indymedia" and scare-monger. :rolleyes:

Very interesting article in last Sunday's issue (October 21, 2007), pages 34-43, by John Arlidge, "Who's Looking At You?". Now, personally, I'd find Google's intentions a little creepier than a database of DNA set up with the sole purpose of solving crime. I'll let you find it and read through it yourselves, if you're really interested in the topic of "privacy".

humanji

But it will happen. That's the way technology is heading. It can't be stopped, because it's already started. It's just a matter of using it correctly from the start.

rusalka

Too many wimmins would be running scared.......;)

Apparently 1 in 25 fathers is not the biological parent of a child they think is theirs.....
http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/9/749

BlitzKrieg

humanji wrote: »

But it's not a matter of if it becomes a reality, but when. This will happen and the blackmarket will boom with technology that can abuse the knowledge of our DNA. It can't be stopped, but it can be curbed. If people start planning on how to use and safeguard this sort of information then we can at least start a step ahead of those who would use us. Sadly, the reality is, is that Ireland will be last in line to use anything like this. We've a better chance of getting the e-voting up and running :rolleyes:

I am still undecided about the topic (need a bit more research beyond the babble of boards on either side)

But the one comment I can make is think of all the *simple* projects the irish government, the american government and even (arguble) the EU have taken on that have been so very well planned that turned into complete disasters down the line.

I am looking at the track record for national programs, not the topic itself and I wouldnt a) believe the system will ever work 100% because, they never do and b) there are far too many cases of programs set up in one decade that come around and bite us on the ass the next. When you throw something so definite as DNA into the mix, I rather not take that plunge.

Would it decrease crime? I would guess not, the majority of criminals are not evil geniuses, crime will still happen because someone needs a fix or its a crime of passion, or a situation that escalated badly.

So weighing practical positives and negatives I will have to say, no I rather not go the mandatory DNA sample.

Also on another practical question, how would you introduce it? Do you suddenly announce that everyone after a specific date will be part of the program...do you simply ignore all the people born before that date? Or will there be a nationwide process...taking note of the number of people who bother to vote, imagine the difficulty in locating everyone...then there will be those who do not want to be on the system either for political religion or personal reasons.

Black Swan

daveg wrote: »

I realise that this “infringes” on our human rights but in the grand scheme of things is this not a good idea?

Leads to police state thinking? You shouldn't mind having cams installed in your bedrooms if nothing illegal is happening there?:eek:

It also assumes that the database that stores the DNA cannot be cracked/hacked and innocent citizens falsely accused of crimes?

seamus

dame wrote: »

Very interesting article in last Sunday's issue (October 21, 2007), pages 34-43, by John Arlidge, "Who's Looking At You?". Now, personally, I'd find Google's intentions a little creepier than a database of DNA set up with the sole purpose of solving crime. I'll let you find it and read through it yourselves, if you're really interested in the topic of "privacy".

I read that article and I've read a good few others along the same vein. Ironically, these stories about Google are as paranoid and anti-information-storing as the tabloids you seem to abhorr.

The difference with Google is that it's holding onto information freely provided to them by people and stored with very clear intentions. The only reason the "Please think of the children" crowd have a problem with it, is because Google are a private company.

dame

seamus wrote: »

I read that article and I've read a good few others along the same vein. Ironically, these stories about Google are as paranoid and anti-information-storing as the tabloids you seem to abhorr.

The difference with Google is that it's holding onto information freely provided to them by people and stored with very clear intentions. The only reason the "Please think of the children" crowd have a problem with it, is because Google are a private company.

So every time you search for information on your hemorrhoids (or whatever) you're happy with that information being stored?

Also, the "very clear intentions" of Google are to make money, thereby increasing share-holder wealth. The "very clear intentions" of a DNA database would be to solve crime, for the good of society.

seamus

I'm happy for that information to be stored and if I'm uncomfortable with it, I'm happy that I can ensure that the search can no longer be linked back to me.

The problem is that people see the internet as a big muddy pool where they throw a stone in and somehow the stone comes back out with some stuff written on it. All someone has to do is say, "Google is making a note of all these stones" and people get all freaked out because they can't see into the muddy pool.

dame

seamus wrote: »

I'm happy for that information to be stored and if I'm uncomfortable with it, I'm happy that I can ensure that the search can no longer be linked back to me.

The problem is that people see the internet as a big muddy pool where they throw a stone in and somehow the stone comes back out with some stuff written on it. All someone has to do is say, "Google is making a note of all these stones" and people get all freaked out because they can't see into the muddy pool.

I'm sure Google with all their resources and highly educated experts are slightly more clued in about the workings of the "muddy pool" than you are. :rolleyes:

Did you actually read the full article or did you just skim past it reading the headlines?

MooseJam

I think it's a bad idea and would refuse to give a sample

Black Swan

MooseJam wrote: »

I think it's a bad idea and would refuse to give a sample

If you were a law abiding citizen in all other things but surrendering your DNA to the authorities, and you refused, would they prosecute and criminalize you?

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If you were a law abiding citizen in all other things but surrendering your DNA to the authorities, and you refused, would they prosecute and criminalize you?

I hate to say it, but I think they'd have to, otherwise the criminals and psychopaths would all refuse to give their samples.

seamus

dame wrote: »

I'm sure Google with all their resources and highly educated experts are slightly more clued in about the workings of the "muddy pool" than you are. :rolleyes:

Did you actually read the full article or did you just skim past it reading the headlines?

A fundamental understanding of how the technologies work is all that's required to distance yourself from links to your online behaviour. While I'm nothing approaching an expert, I'm not a rank amateur either. I do have more than a fundamental understanding of what's involved.

There's no such thing as anonimity on the internet and a part of using the internet is accepting that with enough resources anyone will track you down, but Google don't have access to sufficient information to pin everyone down directly to their online searches.

dame

seamus wrote: »

A fundamental understanding of how the technologies work is all that's required to distance yourself from links to your online behaviour. While I'm nothing approaching an expert, I'm not a rank amateur either. I do have more than a fundamental understanding of what's involved.

There's no such thing as anonimity on the internet and a part of using the internet is accepting that with enough resources anyone will track you down, but Google don't have access to sufficient information to pin everyone down directly to their online searches.

They may in the future. Did you read about cloud computing? That's one of their dreams for the future.

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

I hate to say it, but I think they'd have to, otherwise the criminals and psychopaths would all refuse to give their samples.

So the privacy rights of the law abiding majority should be governed by the behaviour of the small deviant criminal minority?

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So the privacy rights of the law abiding majority should be governed by the behaviour of the small deviant criminal minority?

Sure we'll just let the criminal minority take over and run everything....works well enough in Italy.

Stercus Accidit

Well if you've nothing to hide you,ve nothing to lose.

I've nothing to hide so why not p1ss off because I've no reason to give you my dna, and I've every reason to retain my privacy any way.

If I came into your house and had a look around would you let me if you've nothing to hide? No porn or anything, not that thats illegal but I'll root around anyway, just embarass you a bit, poke around your underwear.

Now lets put me in a uniform, will you let me?

Privacy is very valuable, to me anyway, I've nothing to hide so theres no reason to take my dna and I have no reason to give it.

Latchy

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So the privacy rights of the law abiding majority should be governed by the behaviour of the small deviant criminal minority?

Some people might say that the rights of the law abiding majority are already goverend by the behaviour of small deviant criminal minority as in ' their rights are more important than the victims' so you could argue that it's no different regards privacy on the net ?

Hobbes

seamus wrote: »

This is really the main thing. I'm fairly liberal with my personal data and not overly concerned with people "knowing things" about me for the most part. But when it comes to complete genetic profiles it's crossing a line.

For the majority of the population that won't amount to much this is grand. The issue starts when your trying to work in an area that someone else may have an agenda.

To cite a really good example of why this is such a bad thing you only need read up on J Edgar Hoover. Here is a guy, head of the FBI who had a file on anyone who may of come to power or was in power. Anytime he needed something he would just bring out the file, or release the material that would destroy that person.

Latchy

Hobbes wrote: »

For the majority of the population that won't amount to much this is grand. The issue starts when your trying to work in an area that someone else may have an agenda.

To cite a really good example of why this is such a bad thing you only need read up on J Edgar Hoover. Here is a guy, head of the FBI who had a file on anyone who may of come to power or was in power. Anytime he needed something he would just bring out the file, or release the material that would destroy that person.

JFK was no fan of Hoover

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Not sure how you can compare the validity and reliability of information obtained about a web surfer with that of DNA sample? DNA is essentially proof positive, provided that the chain of evidence is not tampered with by crackers/hackers or law enforcement with a hidden agenda?

I have a hacker friend who preserves his anonymity on the web in several ways (only a few I know about). He uses Tor that randomises the origin of his signal. He frequently uses free internet wifi hotspots, where the IP address is the wifi router and not his. Sometimes he wardrives and then logs onto the net through some neighbor's unencrypted wifi router. He uses more than one alias "handle," and when asked for identifying information, he often gives misinformation. He goes through and tosses out email addresses like confetti. He has a programme on his laptop that randomises his IP address information (which frankly, I don't understand how it works). He even mumbled something after one too many pints about changing or otherwise hiding his MAC number. You might argue that there would be a way to ID his "fist," but unless you were a very sophisticated cyber-law enforcement unit looking for someone like him in particular, and not the giant, millions-of-user Google, tracking and IDing this one individual user I doubt would be valid or reliable (obviously unlike his DNA sample)?

Now this hacker friend may be an exception, but it does raise the question about how reliable and valid Google's information may be about a user that may use one or two of this hacker's methods? So, to compare IDing someone through Google and their DNA in the same breath is problematic?

SimpleSam06

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I have a hacker friend who preserves his anonymity on the web in several ways (only a few I know about). He uses Tor ... but unless you were a very sophisticated cyber-law enforcement unit looking for someone like him in particular, and not the giant, millions-of-user Google, tracking and IDing this one individual user I doubt would be valid or reliable (obviously unlike his DNA sample)?

Ah if I wanted to find him I'd just sift IP logs from ISPs in the area looking for frenetic bursts of activity from unusual nodes to unusual places. One thing about wardriving, you can't do it for very long. If he was a real pro he'd be remote tunnelling his way in from a Korean linux server via the Philippines, and using irc botnets to produce port knock echoes in hypertext mixed in with a stegging algorithm to pictures of nudie teens mirrored on torrents. Track that if yer 'ard enuf.

But eh no, google is nothing like DNA fingerprinting.

Jesus Wept

Thaedydal wrote: »

There were calls to do this and to do automatic paterinty testing when a child is born.

There should be imo, far too many men raising children that aren't their own and they don't know it. The topic deserves it's own thread though.

RuailleBuaille

The original post is that a DNA database will reduce 99.9% of rape.
IMO this is not true because over 80% of women raped have been raped by someone known to them and the low conviction rate is due to the fact that many women do not feel willing or able to stand up in court and relive the experience under the watchful glare of the public. Having DNA to 'prove' the rape does not change the fact that many women will not wish to subject themselves to the interrogation that ensues - her word against his. DNA only proves there was sexual contact, it does not alter the surrounding grey area involved: if it was forced, if 'she led him on' or was 'asking for it'. The rape victim will still have to stand up in court and try to convince a jury that it was rape and not consensual sex. This is a seriously traumatising experience AFTER the rape and that's why I doubt that a DNA database will considerably higher conviction rates or lower the incidence of rape. Unfortunately.

Black Swan

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But eh no, google is nothing like DNA fingerprinting.

Exactly! So to compare the two on this thread makes no sense.

Mandatory DNA registration reminds me of what the Bush gang is trying to do since 9/11 in the States. They want national ID cards to track citizen movement. Rather than the free flow of citizens between the 50 states (which they now have), you would have to swipe your card to have access to a state, and someday a county or a city. They are also pushing for all vehicles to have mandatory GPS units installed.

I don't buy the "If you're not a bad guy, you shouldn't complain" argument. It hasn't been that many years since tyrants ruled nations and used information to abuse and kill their citizens (Hitler, Stalin, and some contemporary ones that I will not mention).

daniel3982

The British police already have my DNA after I got arrested for Drunkeness.... when they took it I said "here's where you get me for all my heinous sexual crimes", they weren't amused like

dame

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a bit more than cookies Google are planning. Research.

Yes, there have been leaks in the past and yes, it is possible that there may be leaks in the future. However, have you ever done any shopping online? Have you ever handed over your credit card to the waiting staff in a restaurant and let them take it away from the table to swipe it? Do you trust the bank staff not to make use of your personal details (copy of passport, DOB, address, account details, employment details, etc)? Do you trust that everything you get posted to you will arrive? Would you post money? Do you think all car tax disks arrive at their destination? There can be leaks and fraud anywhere. Does that mean we should all go back to the days of paper money, pre-online banking, pre-credit cards, pre-fingerprinting, pre-biometric passports, pre-photocopiers, pre-computers? I'm asking this of all the "no" brigade by the way, not just you.

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

I'm asking this of all the "no" brigade by the way, not just you.

The insurance companies in the USA would just love to get their hands on DNA information to exclude certain people at risk from health coverage. Once the database is created, they can use their millions of dollars in campaign contributions to influence and obtain access to this information. Of course the politicians would allow this stating it was in the "national good."

Tar.Aldarion

I want everybody RFID tagged. I have the technology and will to do it.

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Exactly! So to compare the two on this thread makes no sense.

Sigh, plenty of information is already stored on each and every one of us in lots of different places. Read up on Google's 300 year plan people.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Mandatory DNA registration reminds me of what the Bush gang is trying to do since 9/11 in the States. They want national ID cards to track citizen movement. Rather than the free flow of citizens between the 50 states (which they now have), you would have to swipe your card to have access to a state, and someday a county or a city. They are also pushing for all vehicles to have mandatory GPS units installed.

Fishing vessels over 10m already have mandatory tracking devices. Airplanes have mandatory tracking devices. What's so bad about cars having GPS?

Do you carry a mobile phone? If they had a reason to, then the authorities could already track you using that. Does that bother you?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I don't buy the "If you're not a bad guy, you shouldn't complain" argument. It hasn't been that many years since tyrants ruled nations and used information to abuse and kill their citizens (Hitler, Stalin, and some contemporary ones that I will not mention).

Hitler seems to be a good answer for lots of things doesn't he? Lets not fortify bread with folic acid....is the state turning into Hitler and deciding what we should eat? Why flouridate the water.....Hitler wanted to mass dose people too didn't he?

Did you know about the forced sterilisation of indians in America in the 1930's? They only dropped their eugenics program so they could go after Hitler without that being thrown in their faces. There are plenty of things that have happened that shouldn't have. That shouldn't mean we shy away from anything new just in case there could be a bad egg somewhere who decides to use it for evil purposes. By the way, governments are elected in Democratic countries. If you think they might grow evil, then don't vote for them.

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The insurance companies in the USA would just love to get their hands on DNA information to exclude certain people at risk from health coverage. Once the database is created, they can use their millions of dollars in campaign contributions to influence and obtain access to this information. Of course the politicians would allow this stating it was in the "national good."

There's a thing called democracy. Politicians are elected representatives, there to serve the people, not business. Anyway, most of the politicians would undoubtedly not want their genetic information shared either. There's bound to be a lot of them who have had close relatives with either cancer or heart disease or diabetes or some other disease and they'd know there's a good chance they share a lot of the same DNA. Then again, maybe their fathers aren't really their fathers!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

By the way, governments are elected in Democratic countries. If you think they might grow evil, then don't vote for them.

That's a gross oversimplification of how governments operate or how they are elected. Just like stating that 99.9% of murders/rapes could be reduced by the silver bullet of DNA testing. Where did the 99.9% come from, by the way? Using an unsubstantiated number for argument purposes? Read How to Lie with Statistics by Huff.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

That's a gross oversimplification of how governments operate or how they are elected. Just like stating that 99.9% of murders/rapes could be reduced by the silver bullet of DNA testing. Where did the 99.9% come from, by the way? Using an unsubstantiated number for argument purposes? Read How to Lie with Statistics by Huff.

I never said that 99.9% of murders/rapes could be reduced by DNA testing. That was the OP. I'm asking why is it so bad if it reduces even a few murders (as in if it caught a mass murderer after his first victim rather than after his 48th).

I have studied Statistics (two years) and Numerical Analysis. I know how statistics work. I haven't quoted any statistics in this thread so you've read it wrong.

dame

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It could be mandatory to have your phone with you for work.

Black Swan

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agree. Choice is important!

McSandwich

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." - Voltaire

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin


"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered." - Dorothy Thomson

dame

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, I'm not saying that we should accept that there are flaws in information management at present. I'm saying that it's a bit rich to object to a system which may help humanity, just because you don't like information being stored on you, but happily choose to provide plenty of information to various other sources.

You can choose at present, but choices between various services may get narrowed down in future to just one or two. What happens when companies buy each other out and take each other over? What happens when one gets most of the market share and others simply can't compete? Going bac to Google again, they currently do 3 out of every 4 searches in Europe. I'd also bet your computer is either running on Windows (or less likely Apple or Linux (not as likely)). Not very much choice there really.

Obviously, the storage system would have to be secure and strictly controlled. That's a given. Nobody's disputing that.