What could possibly go wrong?

And police agencies wonder why folks are reluctant to cooperate with them, and why they're more than a little reluctant to voluntarily submit personal information to police databases. Perhaps I'm channeling my inner pessimism, but I imagine this system will lead to a lot of conversations like this:

"Sir, we have considerable evidence that your brother was involved in a shooting last Friday."

"I haven't spoken to him in more than a year, haven't seen him in three years. Why are you knocking on my door?"

"We tracked you as a relative of his through out DNA database."

"I've no comment and have no information."

"We see you have a criminal record and are currently on probation, it would be in your best interest to cooperate..."

Et cetera. Seeing as the article seems to indicate that it would only link records in the felony database, it's not nearly as big an issue right NOW, but I utterly detest the precedent it sets. More than anything, any system that allows for more police intimidation of people who're unlinked to a crime is a system I'd like to see split in two with an ax.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that California is doing this. These farks will do anything to preserve and advance their two-class pseudo-socialist police state.

I can't wait to leave this farking place.

Having an evil twin just got a lot scarier.

This type of headline is becoming old and busted.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.


/I feel so dirty for saying that

SpiderQueenDemon: Having an evil twin just got a lot scarier.

Put a fake goatee and the cops will be confused.

/Unless they know about the evil gene

Three guarantees in life: Death, taxes, Jerry Brown has some asinine plan.

Hooray! When the police have finally ID'ed all our DNA and finished construction of the "re-assessment" camps with high-tech laser-powered force field fences, does that mean I can finally get a jet car? Cool.

The number of victims and those not convicted of a crime, that have their DNA in one of th database is growing. The last thing I want to have happen, is identify a relative just because I bothered to report an unrelated crime.

Screw my relatives, if my DNA was in the data base and I found out one of my relatives did it... I would sure as hell rat them out.

Seriously_seriously: Screw my relatives, if my DNA was in the data base and I found out one of my relatives did it... I would sure as hell rat them out.

Because if the state is looking for them they're obviously guilty.

ayesee: And police agencies wonder why folks are reluctant to cooperate with them, and why they're more than a little reluctant to voluntarily submit personal information to police databases. Perhaps I'm channeling my inner pessimism, but I imagine this system will lead to a lot of conversations like this:

"Sir, we have considerable evidence that your brother was involved in a shooting last Friday."

"I haven't spoken to him in more than a year, haven't seen him in three years. Why are you knocking on my door?"

"We tracked you as a relative of his through out DNA database."

"I've no comment and have no information."

"We see you have a criminal record and are currently on probation, it would be in your best interest to cooperate..."

Et cetera. Seeing as the article seems to indicate that it would only link records in the felony database, it's not nearly as big an issue right NOW, but I utterly detest the precedent it sets. More than anything, any system that allows for more police intimidation of people who're unlinked to a crime is a system I'd like to see split in two with an ax.


Amen

Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

This isn't new. Heck, 20/20 did a show on this over a year ago. And it wasn't new then, either. I have huge problems with it from both a scientific and civil liberties perspective. I'm currently involved in some "work" in the area, so I don't really feel like arguing here.

Instead, I'll just say, "IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE, YOU WON'T CARE WHAT YOUR RELATIVES DO!" Wait...what?

I absolutely do not understand how this fails to fall under the protection of "unreasonable search". It is entirely unreasonable to be searching through people's DNA when they've not even been suspected (much less had that suspicion approved by an impartial judge).

This seems to go against the spirit of the law even if it doesn't go against the letter.

I absolutely fail to understand how this can not be a violation of "unreasonable search". I mean, it's one thing to go against any of the literally millions of laws we have in this country but jesus... to go against the core document we want most of all to abide by?

How can this idea not be slapped down by everyone else in the room the second it escapes the lips of this slimeball? If it isn't going against letter of the law, it is certainly going against the spirit of it.

Sadly, this comes back to freedom. People want control. They want the control over others because they're either power-hungry or scared. Fear can really drive people to extremes and that's sad but FARK YOU if you think I'm going to let your fear drive ME to give up my freedom and give you control over me.

Sorry, thought I goofed up the Boobies and it didn't take. Either that or I'm just /that/ upset about all this.

I'm ready as soon as the general populace says enough and decides to start forcibly removing people from office...
although the general populace can't even seem to vote in what would be their best interest so I won't hold my breath...

/there are more options than the repubocrats
//no... only 2...2 parties...hah hah hah

doyner
It doesn't surprise me in the least that California is doing this. These farks will do anything to preserve and advance their two-class pseudo-socialist police state.

I can't wait to leave this farking place.

Czar???

what?AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!1! YOU SICK SUCKAAAAAAAAAAZ!!1111111!

I'll have to get my black market eyeballs installed in five years or so.

"We have 2,000 murders a year in California -- that is 10,000 since the Iraq war started -- and that is a lot of killing," Brown said. "When you see it and see the victims and have to go to funerals, it is pretty serious stuff."

A murder rate in one state which is more than twice as high as US casualities in the Iraq war. Heh, what a farked-up country. Hey, Americans - what's your excuse for this?

Gash: A murder rate in one state which is more than twice as high as US casualities in the Iraq war

Fail. The simple number of murders is meaningless. The number divided by the population in question is the "murder rate". 30-40 times as many people live in California as have been in the US Armed Forces in Iraq.

Dear California,

Hi, I'm the 4th Amendment. Have we met?

I'm sure that when the police come knocking on your door, they'll be oh-so polite, and apologize for showing up unannounced.

Gash: "We have 2,000 murders a year in California -- that is 10,000 since the Iraq war started -- and that is a lot of killing," Brown said. "When you see it and see the victims and have to go to funerals, it is pretty serious stuff."

A murder rate in one state which is more than twice as high as US casualities in the Iraq war. Heh, what a farked-up country. Hey, Americans - what's your excuse for this?

Stupidity.

caelian: I'm ready as soon as the general populace says enough and decides to start forcibly removing people from office...
although the general populace can't even seem to vote in what would be their best interest so I won't hold my breath...

/there are more options than the repubocrats
//no... only 2...2 parties...hah hah hah

Instead of removing people from office, maybe we should remove the current system of government.

/ Just a thought.
// Please don't put me in Gitmo, Patriot Act Overlords.

If it was only used for violent crime it would help, maybe. But once the prosecutors and cops get their way people will be having their DNA run because some cops finds a crack pipe in an alley or a soda can in a growhouse.

/Big Brother wished he had DNA.

Gash

Aside from the fact that California has more people than Iraq, you have the issues of illegal drugs and their associated violence, urban poverty, etc.

We're already way over the line with this BS - while trying to find a serial rapist targeting college students in a fairly small area the police focused on their list of registered sex offenders. When that didn't turn up any leads they seemed to not have a clue how to proceed.

We've already switched to a system where the cops focus on a list in a database instead of doing real police work. If you aren't in the database you can commit crimes knowing the law will never suspect you, and will instead interrogate the same few known criminals over and over.

almejita: doyner
It doesn't surprise me in the least that California is doing this. These farks will do anything to preserve and advance their two-class pseudo-socialist police state.

I can't wait to leave this farking place.

Czar???

Far from it. I know everyone has been looking for a sighting ever since he received that about which we do not speak, but I assure you I'm no alt. I'm just a guy that can't stand California.

This policy sucks. But man, it'd suck possibly even worse if you got arrested for drunk driving and had to submit a DNA sample. WTF?

something else to consider: getting DNA from a criminal's relative to implicate the criminal. something like following a suspect's kid around at school until he throws away a lollipop stick, and getting DNA off that to use in an investigation of his father. does this violate the 4th amendment? probably not. but it still gives you that gut feeling of being wrong.

Kuta: This policy sucks. But man, it'd suck possibly even worse if you got arrested for drunk driving and had to submit a DNA sample. WTF?

Don't give the state assembly or MADD any ideas.

Typical - troubling, but inevitable. The pattern is to get approval for special circumstances, but then it just becomes ubiquitous later. CHP is about get approval for spy drones to surveil pot farms, but it will spread. I wouldn't mind these kinds of questionable techniques if they always remained reserved for special circumstances, but what happens is someone gets put in charge of the program and then he wants to help out others who he thinks might benefit from their intel or hardware, or he wants to grow his position into a bigger budget, etc etc. Same old song and dance, but what are you going to stop these kinds of things other than not let them get started in the first place - that seems like an overreaction in the opposite direction.

"Who's your daddy?"

/Honestly, welfare recipients DON'T know....

krackpipe: Typical - troubling, but inevitable. The pattern is to get approval for special circumstances, but then it just becomes ubiquitous later. CHP is about get approval for spy drones to surveil pot farms, but it will spread. I wouldn't mind these kinds of questionable techniques if they always remained reserved for special circumstances, but what happens is someone gets put in charge of the program and then he wants to help out others who he thinks might benefit from their intel or hardware, or he wants to grow his position into a bigger budget, etc etc. Same old song and dance, but what are you going to stop these kinds of things other than not let them get started in the first place - that seems like an overreaction in the opposite direction.

Meanwhile, the ACLU gets demonized for fighting this authoritarian tide.

ScaliaDissenting Quote 2008-04-26 05:59:52 PM


Instead of removing people from office, maybe we should remove the current system of government.

like replacing the broken corporate-owned 2party system...?
I'm all for it... but if we can't (& I'm going out on a limb here and say I bet our next PotUS will be either or)... then let's just remove them all and start over... the new crop may then understand the consequences should they again fail us....

I don't see the problem. Once people agreed to put a unique tag on their cars, this seems piddling.

caelian: ScaliaDissenting Quote 2008-04-26 05:59:52 PM


Instead of removing people from office, maybe we should remove the current system of government.

like replacing the broken corporate-owned 2party system...?
I'm all for it... but if we can't (& I'm going out on a limb here and say I bet our next PotUS will be either or)... then let's just remove them all and start over... the new crop may then understand the consequences should they again fail us....

Agreed.

space_cadet_28: I don't see the problem. Once people agreed to put a unique tag on their cars, this seems piddling.

Hahaha. Well said.

I am posting this from a minimum security federal prison, so this is really pissing me off. My extended family on both sides has been involved in crime for 8 generations. As you might know, 5% of the population commits 95% of crimes, and we make sure to teach our kids that only a dumb mug goes to work every day to make money to buy a plasma TV. We teach our kids to break into your house when you are at work and steal your TV. This means we are a lot smarter than you are. For example, a $5000 TV costs you about $9000 in pre-tax income to save up for. You pay income tax, social security tax, property tax on the house you put the TV into, sales tax on the purchase of the TV, and probably more little pissant taxes besides. Now we go in and out in 12 minutes, and take your new TV. So we make like $9000/12_minutes which is $45000 per hour of our work. And we ain't paying tax on that LOL. Now, here is the problem. If the gubmint ever catches on to the fact that most all criminals are raised as children in criminal families, they might decide that the cycle of crime (rolls eyes) could easily be broken IF criminals had their kids taken away. Even in a foster home, as nurturing as that might be, you don't have the foster parents teaching the kids the essentials of life, like how to cut a hole in the side of a house with a cordless Sawzall. Plus those foster home people don't whip the kids with a belt every day like they need to keep them sharp and stealing. Plus they might send them to skool-- gawd what a waste of time. I see this DNA testing and searching for my criminal relatives as the start of a slippery slope, a new McCarthy-ism, to persecute us poor people who are too smart to work in order to get a plasma TV. I hope the ACLU will speak up for us dis-en-franchised victims of the Right-Wing "work-work-work" machine.

Gash:
A murder rate in one state which is more than twice as high as US casualities in the Iraq war. Heh, what a farked-up country. Hey, Americans - what's your excuse for this?

Illegals and the drug "war."

"Hey, did the DNA match come back from that rape?"

"Yes, you're looking for some attractive and successful African-American in Compton who had the same father as an inmate from south central who has been in Pelican Bay for the past five years. No father is listed on his birth certificate. He has no brothers by his mother. No other data is available."

"Thanks, you've been a big help."

PhrankenPharker: I am posting this from a minimum security federal prison, so this is really pissing me off. My extended family on both sides has been involved in crime for 8 generations. As you might know, 5% of the population commits 95% of crimes, and we make sure to teach our kids that only a dumb mug goes to work every day to make money to buy a plasma TV. We teach our kids to break into your house when you are at work and steal your TV. This means we are a lot smarter than you are. For example, a $5000 TV costs you about $9000 in pre-tax income to save up for. You pay income tax, social security tax, property tax on the house you put the TV into, sales tax on the purchase of the TV, and probably more little pissant taxes besides. Now we go in and out in 12 minutes, and take your new TV. So we make like $9000/12_minutes which is $45000 per hour of our work. And we ain't paying tax on that LOL. Now, here is the problem. If the gubmint ever catches on to the fact that most all criminals are raised as children in criminal families, they might decide that the cycle of crime (rolls eyes) could easily be broken IF criminals had their kids taken away. Even in a foster home, as nurturing as that might be, you don't have the foster parents teaching the kids the essentials of life, like how to cut a hole in the side of a house with a cordless Sawzall. Plus those foster home people don't whip the kids with a belt every day like they need to keep them sharp and stealing. Plus they might send them to skool-- gawd what a waste of time. I see this DNA testing and searching for my criminal relatives as the start of a slippery slope, a new McCarthy-ism, to persecute us poor people who are too smart to work in order to get a plasma TV. I hope the ACLU will speak up for us dis-en-franchised victims of the Right-Wing "work-work-work" machine.

Wait, what?

It's hardly "new hatwness" if Law & Order SVU did an episode on this, what, a couple years ago? 2005 wants its hawtness back.

This wouldn't work in West Virginia.