FBI wants palm prints, eye scans to protect U.S.

[pohibaba]

You know what's amazing?

Despite all the retards willing to spout out "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care?" even though everyone posting here clearly has "something to hide", and people like myself lashing out about how un-american that attitude is, and even the 1984 references...

...somehow, even 7 pages deep, no one has proven Godwin correct. Approaching 1 eh? We'll see Godwin, we'll see.

I've come really close to Godwinning this thread a few times, but I've restrained myself thus far. It would be a decently apt analogy, though.

[archibaldcrane]

For those who think it's a good thing (to have a government databse of all its citizens with biometric information), if they were to open up voluntary registration of your retinas/palmprints/tattoo recording tomorrow, would you go do it in order to "protect" yourself?

[Krye]

For those who think it's a good thing (to have a government databse of all its citizens with biometric information), if they were to open up voluntary registration of your retinas/palmprints/tattoo recording tomorrow, would you go do it in order to "protect" yourself?

I don't need protection from myself.

[Charla]

Guys, this is BG. If wing nuts can derail random threads with political debates, then science fiction nerds can derail political debates with random futuristic speculation!

Feel free to get back on topic though. If you can avoid getting derailed by immigration and taxation law again, that's just great.

[Day]

Guys, this is BG. If wing nuts can derail random threads with political debates, then science fiction nerds can derail political debates with random futuristic speculation!

Feel free to get back on topic though. If you can avoid getting derailed by immigration and taxation law again, that's just great.

Taxation and Immigration has a little more to do with the topic at hand than fucking cloning.

Arch: Honestly, I think I would. If it meant I didn't have to worry about some cocksucker stealing my identity and cleaning out my bank account, or worrying about a pedophile working at a daycare center then yeah. I guess it's about weighing the pros vs cons. I don't think anyone can come up with an idea where everyone just goes, "HOLY SHIT GOOD IDEA"( I realize your question is kind of baited, so I'm curious what you are getting at, please don't quote Ben Franklin)

[archibaldcrane]

Arch: Honestly, I think I would. If it meant I didn't have to worry about some cocksucker stealing my identity and cleaning out my bank account, or worrying about a pedophile working at a daycare center then yeah.

The only way this helps to prevent people from impersonating you to access your credit (which is what happens when your "identity is stolen") is if all the financial institutions that would offer you said credit had the facilities to collect the same info from your impersonator (it would have to be in person of course - I know I've never been in personal contact with the representatives of the issuers of either of my credit cards or my student loans) and have access to the government's database to run such a check. Unless there are new laws in place that all lenders must start using biometric information to verify an applicant's identity (which would require everyone applying for credit to have been previously entered into the system), there will always be lenders who won't go through that process and you will still be vulnerable. Hell, I saw a special on Dateline NBC like a year ago where people using a credit card with someone else's name AND PHOTO on it were able to do so at local retailers 90+% of the time. Want to get your eyes scanned every time you pay for something with your credit card? How about online shopping? Oh, and I'd bet all this info would also be entered into the government's database as well - Subject #X383402 made a credit card purchase from XXX at date/time, identity verified by retinal scan.

You can see how the desire to use the government to protect us from "identity theft" can quickly snowball into basically constant monitoring. I don't approve.

Also, how does you getting your biometrics voluntarily input into a database prevent a pedophile from working at a daycare? Answer? It has 0 effect.

[Krye]

Also, how does you getting your biometrics voluntarily input into a database prevent a pedophile from working at a daycare? Answer? It has 0 effect.

Aside from the ability to perform background checks mentioned in the OP?

[Day]

Arch: Honestly, I think I would. If it meant I didn't have to worry about some cocksucker stealing my identity and cleaning out my bank account, or worrying about a pedophile working at a daycare center then yeah.

The only way this helps to prevent people from impersonating you to access your credit (which is what happens when your "identity is stolen") is if all the financial institutions that would offer you said credit had the facilities to collect the same info from your impersonator (it would have to be in person of course) and have access to the government's database to run such a check. Unless there are new laws in place that all lenders must start using biometric information to verify an applicant's identity (which would require everyone applying for credit to be entered into the system), there will always be lenders who won't go through that process and you will still be vulnerable.

Also, how does you getting your biometrics voluntarily input into a database prevent a pedophile from working at a daycare? Answer? It has 0 effect.

I guess I misunderstood. You mean voluntary as in the only people in the database ever would be those that volunteered? Well that would be kind of silly don't you think?

Edit: What I thought you were saying is if they started this program would I go ahead and voluntarily do it. Yeah probably. Like Krye said (goddamnit Krye making me agree), they would be able to perform background checks and know that the person is who they say they are and not just taking on the identity of someone else. I think our current system is too easy to find loopholes in, granted I'm not an expert in this area, I'm just giving you my opinion.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, how does you getting your biometrics voluntarily input into a database prevent a pedophile from working at a daycare? Answer? It has 0 effect.

Aside from the ability to perform background checks mentioned in the OP?

If you aren't a pedophile, having YOUR biometrics in a government database doesn't make your day care any safer.

Also I made an edit about the "identity theft" thing in my last post, taking it just a tiny step further. Think about it.

[archibaldcrane]

I guess I misunderstood. You mean voluntary as in the only people in the database ever would be those that volunteered? Well that would be kind of silly don't you think?

I think that having a database for non criminals is silly, yes.

[Krye]

Also, how does you getting your biometrics voluntarily input into a database prevent a pedophile from working at a daycare? Answer? It has 0 effect.

Aside from the ability to perform background checks mentioned in the OP?

If you aren't a pedophile, having YOUR biometrics in a government database doesn't make your day care any safer.

Also I made an edit about the "identity theft" thing in my last post, taking it just a tiny step further. Think about it.

You're asking a ridiculous question, of course it wouldn't help YOU to have YOUR information input.

I don't need protection from myself.

I suppose it could help identify you after you've been raped, murdered, and maimed.

Or like Day said, it could help keep your identity secure from theft.

But overall, the benefit of this system to YOU would be to have everyone else's data on file.

[Day]

But don't you think that we already have a form of a database? Our current ID system. I mean we have to know who people are somehow.

[Charla]

Ok then, semi-ontopic:

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with a barcode on the back of my neck. By interpolation, then, I wouldn't consider it an invasion of privacy to have my biometrics on file somewhere in case my employer/bank/spouse/gun shop wanted to run a background check. Like I said, the real dirt is on my hard drives.

I also don't have illusions that biometrics can be much help to law/border enforcement until the technology becomes widespread enough or enough money showed up to actually do something with it. So give that a few years and we'll talk.

[Krye]

I guess I misunderstood. You mean voluntary as in the only people in the database ever would be those that volunteered? Well that would be kind of silly don't you think?

I think that having a database for non criminals is silly, yes.

Everyone is a potential criminal. You think criminals are chosen at birth and put on file?

Think of all the crimes that can't be solved because they found evidence like finger prints or DNA, but they couldn't do anything because they don't have that person's information recorded.

The only benefit this "privacy" that you all keep preaching does is aid illegality.

[archibaldcrane]

But don't you think that we already have a form of a database? Our current ID system. I mean we have to know who people are somehow.

There is no federal requirement to be a member of "our current ID system" - millions of Americans (generally poor and/or minorities) don't have and have never obtained a driver's license or state I.D. card. That's why it's such a big deal when people try to demand that voters have such an I.D. - it disenfranchises millions of people who are legally able to vote. People act like being in "the system" is a given - it's not. There is no comprehensive U.S. database that has, for instance, a photo of each person.

Clearly we (we? you mean the government) -don't- have to know who people are somehow, since this country has existed and thrived for nearly 250 years without such a system.

[Day]

Ok then, well I'm in favor of a system where we are all identifiable.

[archibaldcrane]

Everyone is a potential criminal.

Good thing the 4th amendment exists:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

If you want the data of my DNA, my retina, my fingerprints, or my tattoos, you'd better put yourself in a probable cause situation.

[Saga]

Is social security not a form of required identification? While it has different uses than a driver's license, the overall concept is still the same.

[archibaldcrane]

Is social security not a form of required identification? While it has different uses than a driver's license, the overall concept is still the same.

Social security is a number next to a name for taxation/benefits purposes. I don't have a problem with this system, since it by law cannot be used for other purposes.

[aurik]

Social security numbers are also not unique.