s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I'd say no. Our constitution bars the government from compelling a person to self-incrimination. So they wouldn't have the legal right to collect your DNA at birth in hopes of incriminatiing you in the future, imho. Finally, someone that understands the constitution. I can't believe there are so many otherwise intelligent people that don't understand their rights. Thanks socialized education, aka indoctrination propaganda... If you have nothing to hide then its not a problem. This is the worst excuse ever for invasion of privacy. Do you mind if I tap your phone and read all your email for the next year? How about install cameras all over your house? If you got nothing to hide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 While you keep believing everything Glenn Beck tells you... Honestly I would rather believe Jones before I would Beck and I don't even trust Jones much at all. Regardless of whether I like Jones, he is a lot less biased than the CIA controlled MSM. Lawl.. I don't watch or listen to that lunatic that is Glenn Beck.. he can get on the short bus and stay there. Alex Jones is a wacko. This is the worst excuse ever for invasion of privacy. Do you mind if I tap your phone and read all your email for the next year? How about install cameras all over your house? If you got nothing to hide... Then I wouldn't care. I wouldn't have anything to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Then I wouldn't care. I wouldn't have anything to hide. That makes you easy prey for the police state and dictators that run it. Have fun begging for your own families enslavement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 That makes you easy prey for the police state and dictators that run it. Have fun begging for your own families enslavement... Lawl.. no. You have fun getting fitted for some more tin foil hats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Finally, someone that understands the constitution. I can't believe there are so many otherwise intelligent people that don't understand their rights. Thanks socialized education, aka indoctrination propaganda... This is the worst excuse ever for invasion of privacy. Do you mind if I tap your phone and read all your email for the next year? How about install cameras all over your house? If you got nothing to hide... dude if you want I will install a tap on my own phone and let you listen, I dont care, but your going to want to shoot your self afterwords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 dude if you want I will install a tap on my own phone and let you listen, I dont care, but your going to want to shoot your self afterwords Do you mind if I video tape your bathroom and/or bedroom. Knowing I'm watching you and your wife wouldn't bother you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Do you mind if I video tape your bathroom and/or bedroom. Knowing I'm watching you and your wife wouldn't bother you? Why would it bother him? You're not harming him in anyway. He could always cover the camera so you couldn't see them having sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Do you mind if I video tape your bathroom and/or bedroom. Knowing I'm watching you and your wife wouldn't bother you? well im not married, but sure dude go ahead, I have no bloody clue who you are, if I need privacy I can throw a sheet over it. Once again your going to shoot your self after watching me, im rather annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Why would it bother him? You're not harming him in anyway. He could always cover the camera so you couldn't see them having sex. Not if it was required by law. If it was mandatory I'm sure you'd get in trouble for blocking the view. Besides, my point is that some us enjoy our privacy. It's not because we are commiting all kinds of crimes or something, it's simply because we like the right to privacy. If you like being recorded non-stop go on a reality show, I don't want that and I'm sure many people agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Not if it was required by law. If it was mandatory I'm sure you'd get in trouble for blocking the view. its never going to be mandatory by law. not to mention it would be physically impossible to watch even 1% of the population, you make it sound like if they tapped phones someone would be listeing at all times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 its never going to be mandatory by law. not to mention it would be physically impossible to watch even 1% of the population, you make it sound like if they tapped phones someone would be listeing at all times Not the point, the point is that we all have a right to privacy. If you want to let someone infringe upon that go ahead, but don't tell me I have to do the same. Never say never, they are already talking about putting them in "morally questionable" people's homes, next it's everyone. It's like boiling a frog, if you turn the heat up too fast they jump out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 its never going to be mandatory by law. not to mention it would be physically impossible to watch even 1% of the population, you make it sound like if they tapped phones someone would be listeing at all times 300+ million americans... 1 billion + cameras... yeah.. doesn't sound so plausible now, does it S1k3st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 300+ million americans... 1 billion + cameras... yeah.. doesn't sound so plausible now, does it S1k3st that's not what you'll think in 10 years when it's being done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 that's not what you'll think in 10 years when it's being done... It wont be done in 10 years. Nor will it be done in 20 or 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechronic Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Seriously, can people stop shouting "privacy", "liberty", and stuff about tracking and crap. It doesn't make sense.Explain how it's an invasion of privacy. Explain how it's taking about your liberties. Explain how it could be used to frame or track people. Then you'll have a good argument. It is MY DNA, it belongs to ME, therefore i should not be obliged to SHARE MY DNA. It is that simple. You'd have to be seriously naive to believe that the government is trustworthy. It isn't just the DNA Database that i would take issue with, it's the whole sham we call democracy. The economy is on its knees, Good Men are dieing in Iraq, the list is endless. In Britain we've had all kinds of scandals and deception (Cash for Honours, Expenses Scandal, EU Vote). There were a lot of issues not so long ago with important data being lost which contained National insurance numbers, addresses, bank details and yet you think i should trust these clowns with my DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linsook Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 LOL. Stop feeding the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamwhoiam Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Yep, it's official. Having an unpopular opinion is "trolling"... On this site, that's absolutely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokthraka Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 It wont be done in 10 years. Nor will it be done in 20 or 30. exactly, I just decided to say there are 150 million households, 10 cameras each, costing $20 a peice, would be $30 million + a 100 fee per camera per year, it would come up to $153000000000 for the first year It is MY DNA, it belongs to ME, therefore i should not be obliged to SHARE MY DNA. It is that simple. You'd have to be seriously naive to believe that the government is trustworthy. It isn't just the DNA Database that i would take issue with, it's the whole sham we call democracy. The economy is on its knees, Good Men are dieing in Iraq, the list is endless. In Britain we've had all kinds of scandals and deception (Cash for Honours, Expenses Scandal, EU Vote). There were a lot of issues not so long ago with important data being lost which contained National insurance numbers, addresses, bank details and yet you think i should trust these clowns with my DNA? your welcome to leave, I hear North Korea is pretty nice around this time of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechronic Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Just because there are places with a worse democratic system than our own, doesn't mean that we should accept the failings of our own, nor is it justification. Imagine telephoning your water supplier and getting this reply for example; "My Water supply is non-existant, i keep having to run across the street to get some so i can make Coffee" "Sir, some slower developed countries don't have any Water and have to walk miles to get the smallest amount, Goodbye" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironsight2000 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 the only good thing i can see come from it is if some one is kidnapped they will be able to identify the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spy beef Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Man needs to learn to stop worrying about himself to advance the common good for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scratch42069 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 What's with all the government operatives wanting people's DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 It is MY DNA, it belongs to ME, therefore i should not be obliged to SHARE MY DNA. It is that simple. Your name belongs to you too, as does your money and your fingerprint. Yet these are not things we have an issue with the government knowing information about. (Well, I'm sure s1k3sT does, but he isn't representative) The concept presented here, for perhaps the twelfth time, is not about the government storing DNA. It's about storing a hash of the data from your junk DNA. Yes, the government could store DNA. But conversations based entirely about what might conceivably be don't really go anywhere. This wouldn't be a "shady" operation, it would be based on known laws, it would be a massive undertaking (and thus a massive undertaking to conceal), and storing the DNA wouldn't be much use since the purpose is achieved by creating the hash - no reason to keep the DNA afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Your name belongs to you too, as does your money and your fingerprint. Yet these are not things we have an issue with the government knowing information about. (Well, I'm sure s1k3sT does, but he isn't representative) The concept presented here, for perhaps the twelfth time, is not about the government storing DNA. It's about storing a hash of the data from your junk DNA. Yes, the government could store DNA. But conversations based entirely about what might conceivably be don't really go anywhere. This wouldn't be a "shady" operation, it would be based on known laws, it would be a massive undertaking (and thus a massive undertaking to conceal), and storing the DNA wouldn't be much use since the purpose is achieved by creating the hash - no reason to keep the DNA afterwards. Why isn't my view "representative"? How do you know this wouldn't be a shady operation? The government has lied countless times but you still trust them? :blink: :pinch: :wacko: I posted a recent story about the government taking infants' dna and storing it without even asking the parents. If they are willing to do that with infants, then what makes you think it couldn't happen again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Why isn't my view "representative"? How do you know this wouldn't be a shady operation? The government has lied countless times but you still trust them? :blink: :pinch: :wacko: I posted a recent story about the government taking infants' dna and storing it without even asking the parents. If they are willing to do that with infants, then what makes you think it couldn't happen again? s1k3sT, do you truly believe your views reflect the majority of people? Most people are not conspiracy theorists. Oh, they might state interest, but that is not the same as vehemently believing them (something which you have made obvious in this thread) It wouldn't be shady because we're talking about it. It was discussed in a high profile newspaper. It would be nationwide. The ramifications would be public (e.g. homicide court cases). I don't know why I'm bothering replying again about the infant DNA thing because I have stated the same bloody thing several times as an answer. The POINT of the Texas thing was to store DNA. It is specifically not the point of the concept under discussion here. If you are determined to see the absolute worst in everything, fine ... but this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. (Which it isn't, currently) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts