 |
As for the DNA without a warrant, do fingerprints need a warrant? Not after you are charged, and DNA is the modern day equivalent of fingerprints. But again I think you have to have transparency, oversight, and rules that have to be developed and be current with circumstances and conditions,
From the Scalia dissent :Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Be prepared to be swabbed when a cop pulls you over for going through a stop sign.Quote:
If one believes that DNA will “identify” someone arrested for assault, he must believe that it will “identify” someone arrested for a traffic offense. This Court does not base its judgments on senseless distinctions. At the end of the day, logic will out. When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, “We can find no significant difference between this case and King.” Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.
I recall the collective outrage by the left when the Bush adm stayed within the guidelines of the Patriot Act . Now it appears that you'll scrap your argument against Bush in favor of worse intrusions, that clearly goes beyond the limits of the law, in defense of the Emperor. I'll wait for your apology to Bush... but I won't hold my breath .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Maybe you misunderstood my position, if they don't do fingerprints at traffic stops, why would you do DNA testing? Since the technology is here and going nowhere, maybe expanding and evolving, why shouldn't you have rules, regulations and oversights, to keep up?
Hello again,
Your government is watching, listening, monitoring, swabbing, patting down, stopping and frisking, probing, scanning, sniffing, and scoping you... And, that's just at the airport.
They've got secret courts and secret laws. I'm telling you, this is the Soviet Union on STEROIDS!
I don't like it. I didn't like it when George W. Bush started doing it, and I don't like it now.. Once the 4th Amendment got cracked, it got DESTROYED.
To me, the biggest scandal of all, one that means the END of my beloved country as I know it, is THIS one.
excon
PS> (edited) I'm watching FOX. Those people are really BUMMED that Obama is searching them. They're OUTRAGED.
They're HYPOCRITES!
SCOTUS just decided that anything goes. This case was in Maryland ;but how it's applied nationally is now open to local interpretation.
The people behind some of the major Supreme Court cases of 2013 - News - MSN CA
Taking DNA swabs during arrests
Quote:
In a 5-4 ruling in its first decision of the term, the Supreme Court on June 3 upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, deciding that the practice is the 21st century-equivalent of fingerprinting. The five justices in the majority wrote that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.
The case arose from the 2009 arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man named Alonzo King, who was arrested for second-degree assault. Police took a DNA swab from his cheek, ran it through a database, and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years prior. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault -- a crime that did not mandate the collection of his DNA (all states collect DNA of convicted felons). The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.
The Supreme Court decision reverses the Maryland court's ruling and reinstates Alonzo's rape conviction, according to the AP.
I agree with you except at one point. I believe it was Clinto that opened the door to warantless searches. The difference being that it was refined under Bush. But there was still a mandate for getting a warrant so it can be used in court. What is happening now is a confiscation of data that could if released to the wrong sources can place ordinary people in extreme danger under life threatening conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It's a fact they had a warrant as broad as it was that compelled data collectors to comply, through the FISA Court. We can debate the probable cause behind it though as being non specific.
So when the government suspects everyone of being a terrorist then you don't think that that is too broad ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't know since we are not privy to those facts at this time and maybe we shouldn't be, but if the FISA court, and both democrats and republicans of the intelligence committee have signed off then maybe we don't have enough facts yet. Many questions have to be answered before I cry foul. And many congressmen are asking.
A fact we know for sure is we can't assume we know all the terrorists or there contacts and while we want to trust our fellow citizens we should verify it given another fact, Terrorist and criminals and crazy people do use the internet, and they do use the phone.
If you are more afraid of your government abusing power than terrorists, or crazy criminals killing Americans, then I can understand your position of assuming its too broad a net they cast. I fear both to be honest.
That was indeed the majority opinion as written by Kennedy. I agree with the Scalia dissent . DNA is much more than a fingerprint.Quote:
In a 5-4 ruling in its first decision of the term, the Supreme Court on June 3 upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, deciding that the practice is the 21st century-equivalent of fingerprinting. The five justices in the majority wrote that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.
The case arose from the 2009 arrest of a 26-year-old Maryland man named Alonzo King, who was arrested for second-degree assault. Police took a DNA swab from his cheek, ran it through a database, and matched it to an unsolved rape from six years prior. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for the 2009 assault -- a crime that did not mandate the collection of his DNA (all states collect DNA of convicted felons). The Maryland Court of Appeals later reversed the rape conviction on the grounds that the DNA sample was an unreasonable search.
The Supreme Court decision reverses the Maryland court's ruling and reinstates Alonzo's rape conviction, according to the AP.
REP. MAXINE WATERS: The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
MR. MARTIN: In terms of Organizing for America, he is now shifting to become a 501 (c)(4)?
REP. MAXINE WATERS: That's right. And that database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it. And he's [President Obama] been very smart. It's very powerful what he's leaving in place.
Maxine Waters Confirms "Big Brother" Database 2013 - YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Insanity plus 1. Why would she even think it is legal for a private organization to have a database like that they may have been collected through government assistance ?
Banks can track you easily through your paper trail on line so should we trust them too? Ever try to run from a bill collector or telemarketer, or a LAWYER? Now they have software and programs to bust your pimples.
Actually it is possible if you preserve your online identity. Im always cautioning people about TMI. The thing is that a banking institution by reason of how it works requires the information in order to complete transactions. They are not a third party entity. Many records are held from the public. Those records can and should be protected. But a third party collecting information without your knowlage or consent in my opinion is illegal. If you notice even many social webstes have disclaimers of one kind or another. Every contract you have a "sharing" claus and most include the passing of information by sopeana to give information to an outside source.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Businesses and banks share and sell lists all the time and to deal with them you do have to check a box of a lot of fine print no one reads. I can deal with check balances and safe guards that reflect the new technology and defines what legal and not.
As much as I hate the idea of law enforcement having vast powers, I recognize they have to have tools to be effective against bad guys who are ever coming up with ways to get what they want.
I mean how else can you separate bad guys killing innocent ones if you can't tell them apart? Its to late after the bomb goes off.
And Dodd Frank made it possible for the government to access all that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
How else? There is a prsumption of innocence before guilt in out legal system. It sounds as if you would like to see that go to the wayside? If there I a criminal in a neighborhood then they should arrest the whole neighborhood? After all isn't it guilt by association?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Our legal system is designed as such that yes the bomb has to go off before you can charge someone with a crime for it. If you don't want that system and you want to arrest and prosecute for thinking something that may be illegal to the fullest extent of the law then you live in a very different world then I want to be in. How many times have some of us on some level said dumb things out of anger with no real intent behind the thinking. Things along the lines of "geez I could kill so and so for doing that" or other things that may come to mind while driving in heavy traffic. We don't need thought police. And we don't need a third party monitoring us or releasing records on us to a general public that may endanger lives.
Well hell, that's the solution then, wait until they strike and then start looking for them. Why didn't I think of that?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 AM. |