| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| State take Fingerprint; Is it right? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 16 2008, 09:17 AM (767 Views) | |
| Union | Jul 18 2008, 09:02 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
And you guys call us the loonies... Look, too many crimes remain unsolved. I don't see anything wrong with fingerprint and DNA databases, accessible only if you're accused of a crime, and cameras on every street corner. If one murderer goes to jail, or one innocent is released from it, then it was all worth it. The right to privacy... sure. In your house. Once you step out those doors, you're in public, and your actions deserve to be recorded. Are you going to jail just because they take your fingerprints? No. But if you commit a crime, yes, they will find you much faster and much quicker. If you're worried about that... I have no sympathy for you. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 18 2008, 09:31 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Sigh! You fail to understand one of the principle truths of law enforcement - they will ALWAYS overstep their bounds whenever you expand their capabilities, and before you know it, the government will be tracking us in DNA groups, by the swirls in our fingers, and the next thing you know they decide you are not "European" or "American" enough, and you have no where to hide since there is a camera on every corner and they have your prints. History backs me up here - give them an inch, and they take another 100,000,000,000 inches! |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 18 2008, 09:34 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Give them a few inches, then sit on the line with a bunch of guns to keep them from going any further. I do not think modern society, still reeling in desperate attempts to prove they are not Hitler, do not advocate racism, and are above the Holocaust, would ever begin tracking people like that. Seventy years ago, I'd give you the BoD, but not today. Why are you scared of the cameras in public corners. Did you know, in public, people can see you? And these people can testify against you if you commit a crime anyway. Of course, eyewitness testimonial is notoriously unreliable, so it'd be pretty great if we had the facts streaming from the court room. That way, even if twelve people say you committed murder, the tape clearly shows you didn't, or if twelve people say you were hanging with them when you slaughtered that family of five on the street, the tape shows they're all lying for you. |
![]() |
|
| The CNNP | Jul 18 2008, 09:46 AM Post #29 |
|
Enforcer
|
As someone who has done jury duty it is YOUR responsibility to know your rights as a juror. I was sitting on a case and everyone was going to render a guilty verdict. I asked for the judge to submit what I thought was crucial evidence that would determine to me guilt or innocence. The judge denied it, and so there was reasonable doubt in my mind whether he was guilty; so according to the LAW I had to render a not guilty. Plus, if you have ever been through a jury selection process before; it is difficult, not impossible, but difficult to load a jury. Plus, there have been cases where the judge did not allow video evidence into the courtroom so now you have a Peeping Tom's wetdream...video surveillance of everybody and it is still not employed. Plus, there is such thing as video tampering! How do you know for a FACT, beyond a reasonable doubt that what you see is real!? That the tape isn't compromised! |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 18 2008, 11:11 AM Post #30 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
You took a national garison, the French army and a citizen's milita against an overstreched defence force more concerned about stopping other imperialist powers taking our other assets than losing a liability that served little tactical use. Keep in mind how big the British Empire was. Even forgetting all it's other concerns and duties, the shear amount of time it takes to mobilise an army... The US army (at the whims of some theorical dictator) does not have to travel large distances to put down an uprising. And even if it did, modern technology makes travelling the globe a matter of hours - not months. I realise you're big about empowering citizens and putting down the brits at every turn... but you're high if you think you stand a chance. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 18 2008, 12:03 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Well, you also forget we have a volunteer citizen's army that, unlike the German army in 1938 who took an oath of allegience to Adolf Hitler, or the Britich Army who (I presume) take an oath of allegience to the Queen, ours take an oath of allegience to the Constitution of the United States, so even if some facist (see Obama) comes into power he really has no real power over the military, and many would be fully aware of their real allegience (with the people, not the state) and would join the fight. I have a great deal of confidence in the citizens of this land, and I am fairly sure they would act long before some Federal Tito could gain control, and if the citizen's didn't act, the individual states would who, by the way, control a very large amount of arms, armor and amunition. The "checks and balances" built into our government are not just lip service but are real - our founding fathers had seen it all, and were well aware of the abuses of power by monarchs, dictators and petty potentates, and did everything they could to build in safeguards against such a thing, which is why we have had nothing but blood-free transitions of government throughout our entire history; a claim I daresay would be hard for any other nation to make. |
![]() |
|
| Filo | Jul 18 2008, 12:33 PM Post #32 |
|
General
|
What i like less in fingerprinting the people is that them are not in the hand of civilian authority(Commonalities, regions or something like that) but in the hand of questors, in the hand of Police. Taking my fingerprints, state is telling me that i'm a potential criminal, that my freedom is, somowhat(a little may be) controlled. They know me...and this is worse that cameras in the corners becouse, yes they see me, but don't know me, other peoples see me too when i'm walking in the streets... |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 18 2008, 12:40 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Good point. You can still be unknown even if seen walking the street. The cameras do not have built in identity software to finger the movement of all citizens by name. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 18 2008, 01:04 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
So long as they do not start requiring fingerprinting to get on buses, or trains, or etc, I see nothing wrong a national database of every citizen's fingerprints. It does more good than harm. You can identify bodies, john does, etc, using this database. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 18 2008, 01:23 PM Post #35 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
PAH! Your nation is still in diapers. |
![]() |
|
| Toussaint | Jul 18 2008, 01:49 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Major
|
Well so were Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Angola, and just about any other African nation when they achieved independence. Infact, they hadn't even been worked into diapers yet. USA has passed its diaper days, mate. We're now a child in its terrible two's, walking around with a tupperware on its head, while loudly banging pots and pans together. And still, no bloody transitions. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Jul 18 2008, 04:20 PM Post #37 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Wait, wait... WHAT? So now it's guilty until proven innocent? Because that's what you're condoning. The government has no right to my fingerprints. The government has no right to my DNA. Y'know why? Because in a society free of crime, the government becomes the criminal. Sure, we, under your idealized government, would all be safe from each other, but we wouldn't be safe from the government. The government would be able to use our records in any way it saw fit. The corruption would run very, very deep. Picture yourself having a dissenting opinion about something, like what you can or cannot eat. They'd have the power be able to turn you into a murderer or a terrorist overnight while you were sleeping, just because they "found" your fingerprints and DNA at the scene of the crime. Still think the government recording your DNA and fingerprints or anything involving a piece of your body is a good idea? The crooks in the government have the very things they need to frame you forever what they want. Harumf is very correct that if you give them one inch, they will take a few thousand astronomical units. Racism, sadly, is still rampant. Even in the government. Imagine how Arabs, Persians, and even Indians (no, not Native Americans, I mean people from India) feel in our country now, continuously under the scrutiny of a government that runs a nation that's allegedly "free." Every one of them, as decreed by "racial profiling" is a potential terrorist. Not very free for them, is it? And its already reached a point that any U.S. citizen that has a dissenting opinion is now on a terrorist watch list. Anyone who takes photographs or writes something in public is now on a terrorist watch list. Anyone who forgets the list of things you're not suppose to take to the airport and flubs up is now on a terrorist watch list. All the government needs to make these people's lives even more miserable by turning them into "InstaTerrorists" (just fudge and forge some details) is their bodily records such as DNA or fingerprints or whatever. And when the government gets this powerful, don't think guns will stop them if they think they can get away with more. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington, D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional, but it's not a complete victory for the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court "interpreted" the part about regulated militias in a funny way. Originally, when that Amendment was written, the militia was the citizenry of the United States. Everyone and their grandma had a gun back then. We didn't have things like the "National Guard." It was us. We The People. "Regulated militia" meant that citizens who owned guns should regularly train in their use. It did not, as the Supreme Court decided, mean to judge who was "mentally fit" enough to own a gun. Because, when you come down to it, "mentally fit" is a very loose and undefined term. Who is "mentally fit?" They don't say. If a government tried hard, they could try to label just about anyone "mentally unfit." Then boom... your gun's gone. I frankly wouldn't want to live in such a society that required fingerprinting and DNA samples to be considered "law abiding." I shouldn't need to prove such a fact when I'm not in a court room. And who knows when such a society would decide to outlaw free speech. Edited by Comrade Queen, Jul 18 2008, 04:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jul 18 2008, 04:26 PM Post #38 |
|
Science and Industry
|
No human has a right to DNA, including his own. DNA is solely the province of God. Bomb genomics laboratories! |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 19 2008, 12:00 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Yay Scy! You others can say "paranoid", I say "wise!" Oh, and just because I am paranoid doesn't mean the government isn't watching and plotting against me. Also, yay, TC! Bomb the genetic labs! Guard your DNA with your life. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 19 2008, 01:23 PM Post #40 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
What makes you worth the thousands, if not millions, of dollars the government would have to spend to watch over every minute of your life? More importantly, if you are doing something THAT BAD, is there anyone here who thinks the government SHOULDN'T do all in their power to apprehend you? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 20 2008, 10:40 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
It could be something as bad as calling for racial equality (MLK) or running for president in the communist party (A. Davis) or being a union organizer (Hoffa). The Government spent millions tracking these people, I am vocal about my opinions, how do I know what the government is capable of?? Don't be so dmn innocent and idealistic, H, this happens, and you know it. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Jul 20 2008, 05:44 PM Post #42 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Your naivete astounds me. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 20 2008, 05:50 PM Post #43 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Yeah... I know we're all friends here... and lively debate is the spice of the forums... but let's not have this turn nasty ok? Keep things clean and non-insulting. M'kay? |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 21 2008, 10:20 AM Post #44 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
As does yours. Armed militias. Gun ownership for every common criminal. Your paranoia knows no bounds. Fuck that. If the state feels someone is acting in a subversive way, with the goal of undermining the government, this is treason, a criminal offense, and that individual should be aprehended. If the state is acting incorrectly, public outcry will do enough to force the state to release them. It happened in South Africa, it can certainly occur in the USA. We differ ideologically, is all. You see the state as a vehicle for the people. I see the people as tools for the state. We're all cogs in the national machine. Individuals can't do shit. Individuals did not build the Hoover Dam, individuals did not get us on the moon. It is only through a collective effort that we can come together, and that requires a peaceful, stable, organized, and safe society/environment. The state needs to do all it can to provide that by doing all it can to reduce crime, treason, and war. If that requires national ID cards, and cameras on every corner, so be it. Edited by Union, Jul 21 2008, 10:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Jul 21 2008, 10:32 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Methinks we best agree to disagree. I am too much of a Jeffersonian to accept the concept of the individual not being important - I think the individual is the reason for the State's existance, to protect his/her rights, thoughts, freedoms and choices. I see no other reason for the State to exist. I dispise with a passion the notion of collectivism, the hive concept gives me hives. Perpetuating the State is the very furthest thing from my mind at all times. Limiting the State's authority over individuals should be the number 1 reason for governments to exist. If there is crime, I will see to the protection of myself and my family. If it is cold, I will see to the warmth of myself and my family. If there is hunger, I will feed myself and my family. Our visions are polar opposites. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Jul 21 2008, 10:51 AM Post #46 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
And we will never agree, then :P |
![]() |
|
| Paradise | Jul 21 2008, 03:52 PM Post #47 |
![]()
Resident bureaucrat
![]()
|
Why do you vote Republicans then? It doesn't make any sense to vote for a party that attacks civil rights. Edited by Paradise, Jul 21 2008, 03:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Jul 21 2008, 04:48 PM Post #48 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
In our system, only a few third parties won't attack civil rights. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Jul 21 2008, 05:06 PM Post #49 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Nothing came of the Hoover Dam except soil erosion and electricity to power the superfluous neon lights of Las Vegas. Mankind will benefit endlessly from the dynamiting of the Hoover Dam. Nothing came of the trip to the moon except that Richard M. Nixon managed to install his autograph, cast in a bronze plaque, on that celestial body. Our overpopulated, overmedicated, overstimulated Union flies high and will fall hard. The rational-scientific collective is the most absurd and dangerous concept yet conceived by man. The naturo-mystical collective on the other hand, is the end of barbarity. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Jul 21 2008, 10:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Jul 21 2008, 05:13 PM Post #50 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
Technically... wouldn't liberals be more pro-fingerprinting? I mean, That's a sign of expanded government and all that. Eh... I really think the general definition of these things have been dulled over the past several decades. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |












11:47 AM Jul 13