Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Biotech Privacy

DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested 483

Posted by samzenpus
from the and-so-it-begins dept.
Foobar of Borg writes "The AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by a federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in line with the UK which, as discussed before on Slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested

Comments Filter:
  • Balance of power. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny (722443) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:56AM (#23102344) Journal

    If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children. History supports that as do numerous social studies.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:06AM (#23102420)

      If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children.

      Since DNA will first be collected from foreigners, whose stay in the country is dependent on the government's good graces, it's not hard to imagine a Gattaca [amazon.com] style future where, if the government has your DNA on file and you might have some unpleasant genetic predisposition, your application for residency or citizenship suddenly falls though.

    • by presarioD (771260)
      oh yeah? Wait until the patriotic rationalists sniff out your statement and come hollering down with bright examples (none) of police state paradises (Singapore?) where the gross imbalance of state-power has led to concrete reduction of crime... and teRRism...

      you've got to love them, hapless and desperate as they are clinging on any available shred of hope that their world hasn't really capsized...
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:21AM (#23102548) Journal
      You are absolutely correct.

      "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."
      and this might be true, but it also remains true that standard policing is proven, as is forensics.

      There is yet to be ANY evidence that infallible ID of every citizen leads to better security, better safety, or in fact anything better.

      In the end, its ONLY use is control.

      Criminals with no record, no arrests, and perhaps no citizenship fall outside the view of such a system creating yet another situation where only the innocent are inconvenienced.

      REAL ID and biometric IDs have only one purpose, control of the citizenry. period. anytime. in. history.

      I could spend days figuring out several ways to defeat any system of ID presented, and if I can you can be absolutely certain that criminals will. In fact they have much better resources than I do and would probably do a much better job. When you have networks of 'friends' to help you out on both coasts, and on other continents, it's easier to fake things etc.

      When criminals want to do something the phrase "papers please" do not stop them. These ID schemes will in fact ONLY harm citizens and their rights to do as they constitutionally are allowed.
      • Re:Balance of power. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by plague3106 (71849) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:30AM (#23102626)
        Well, even the DNA samples have been called into question. Yes, if you actually recorded every single piece of DNA in a person, you'd probably have something close to foolproof. But not quite.

        As it is though, I think we only look at a 130 some markers... so the changes of "collisions" are greatly increased. Also, it's been shown that some people actually have two sets of DNA. It's not been ascertained how many people may have two sets of DNA in them [thetech.org].
      • (paraphrasing)
        If you're in a free society, it's not safe. You can either have safety, or freedom. But you can't have both at the same time.
    • If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children.
      The question is, is this really true.

      Consider for a moment. Do the supporters of oppressive regimes actually suffer under them? Is it not the case that those who tacitly or overtly support this kind of power imbalance actually benefit? Certainly a minority of top supporters do, but what about the silent and not so silent majority that prop up the regime? Does their support not in fact, pay off?

      Are registered Republican voters who attend church every sunday, protest against abortion, call for lower taxes and "family values" really going to suffer under these DHS policies? I invoke Godwin because it is inevitable. Look at 1930's Germany. If you weren't communist or jewish, then you, as a german, probably did rather well under the Nazi's. Why wouldn't you support them? It's not like you valued abstract concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" now did you?

      Most americans, no, most people in the western world, do not value these concepts. They support internment, executions, secret trials. I'm not being rhetorical here. As long as you mention the right groups; terrorists, pedophiles, minorities, lower classes, etc, the average joe will not see their freedoms as something worth valuing anymore. People do not believe in universal rights for all, only in rights for the right people, which of course includes themselves. It's sad, but that's the way it is.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by leomekenkamp (566309)

        what about the silent and not so silent majority that prop up the regime? Does their support not in fact, pay off?

        Well, that depends how you look at it. Being silent lets you live your live normally for 99.99% of the silent ppl. Being vocal pays off in NOT being able to live your life. So relatively speaking, being silent 'pays off' more than being vocal.

      • by metlin (258108) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:07AM (#23103034) Journal
        That is perhaps one of the most insightful comments I've ever read on Slashdot.

        Most people don't quite look at it that way, but you've got a point there - folks automatically assume that just because people support a regime that does bad things, the same people will suffer under that regime. That is not necessarily true. The reason they select the regime is because bad things happen to "others" that they've been conditioned to hate (brown people, Muslims, immigrants, whatever).

        The Christian right is no different. The average Joe Republican is probably rejoicing at Gitmo and the fallout of our human rights, because hey, he's not affected - it's "someone" else. And if he does get pulled over, he feels proud that he's helping the system further its goals.

        It is usually the powerless ones who are always affected - Jews, minorities and in today's America, the non-citizens. And I am particularly riled up about this because I'm typing this from an airport in Texas, where as a "brown man", I was "randomly selected" to be searched. Yet again. I told the guy that I travel twice a week, and that in the past couple of weeks, I've been "randomly selected" at Texas almost every single time. His answer? "Do you tell the cop that you've never gotten caught speeding except when he's patrolling"

        I was at a loss for words, and this is the irony of it all.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by anothy (83176)
          i have to disagree. under an oppressive regime, everyone (except potentially those in the regime itself) suffers, regardless of whether you support the regime or not. not evenly, and not always in the same ways, as your personal example illustrates, but overall.

          take modern America as an example. middle-class Bush supporters are, in fact, suffering under that regime, they just don't realize it. our economy is a disaster; foreclosures and inflation don't care about political affiliation, nor (for the most pa
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          And you were modded "Troll."

          Gawd, you should know better than to post on slashdot while committing such a heinous crime such as being brown.
  • by techpawn (969834) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:56AM (#23102352) Journal

    anyone who is arrested by federal law enforcement agency
    How is this different than getting your prints taken when your arrested? Or do they only take prints when your charged where as this wants DNA if you're charged or not...?
    • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:00AM (#23102382) Homepage

      How is this different than getting your prints taken when your arrested?

      When I served in the U.S. Navy nearly a decade ago, their way of keeping my DNA on record was by drawing blood. I don't know if the method here is different (does hair or a cheek swab provide a useful sample?), but were it from blood, putting a needle in people who are arrested (not even judged guilty yet) is an unprecented trespass into personal space.

      • by techpawn (969834) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:05AM (#23102412) Journal

        I don't know if the method here is different (does hair or a cheek swab provide a useful sample?)
        The article said cheek swab, but still "we need you to open your mouth so we can stick this in" sounds like something the government is telling us to do a lot lately...
      • by Zaatxe (939368)
        A few years ago here in my country there was a case of a woman who was accused to kidnapp two babies and register them as her legit kids. Well, about 20 years later the story came out, she was arrested, but since the kidnapped babies saw her as a mother, they defended her. One of them, during reporting to the police chief smoked two cigarettes and refused to provide a blood sample for a DNA test. The police then managed to get her DNA sample for the saliva left in the cigarettes' butts and proved she wasn't
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:06AM (#23102422)
      The difference is DNA is more than an identifying trait. DNA defines your physical characteristics - the basis of you.

      I'm not sure about *you*, but I'm a little uncomfortable with ANY government agency being able to tell me more about myself than I myself know.

      This road leads to a Police State - plain and simple. Perhaps your comfortable living in a police state - I'm not.

      What's next? Refusing you the vote cause your DNA shows a tendency to irrational behaviors or mental disease? Perhaps denying you a federal student loan cause you have genetic tendency of lower mental function? We aren't there yet - but moves like these are the first step

      The government does NOT have the right to collect and store my DNA without my permission - PERIOD.

      Anon.
      • by malsdavis (542216) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:46AM (#23102802)
        "The difference is DNA is more than an identifying trait. DNA defines your physical characteristics - the basis of you." You are mistaking DNA with DNA profiles - which is what the government want. DNA profiles are more like an md5 hash of your data (i.e. DNA) rather than all the actual data which makes up you. Storing all that data would require absolutely immense processing and storage capabilities which simply don't exist. Besides, it will be a long, long time before DNA can be properly "read" and not just "compared" (which DNA analysis basically consists of at present). A DNA profile can identify you and basic traits but it can't "identify tendency to irrational behaviors" etc.
        • by bhima (46039) * <Bhima@Pandava.gmail@com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:10AM (#23103062) Journal
          That still does not make me feel any better.
        • by Fëanáro (130986) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:28AM (#23103286)

          DNA profiles are more like an md5 hash of your data
          DNA profiles are a lot more than that.
          Depending on the type of profile, you could for example calculate blood relationship between people. You do not need tthe whole dna for that, close relatvies will also have close matches for the indicators used for profiling.

          Some ways to abuse this:

          "The crime DNA does not match this person exactly, but he is probably a close relative of the criminal, detain and question him!"

          "This person is closely related to several convicted criminals, keep watching him"

          "This person is related to a charged terrorist, deny him the goverment job"

          "This person is related to several people who died early, let's raise his health premiums and offer him life insurances"
  • DHS needs to go (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:58AM (#23102372)
    It's one thing to single out certain segments of the population for greater scrutiny if the greatest proportion of violent crimes is perpetrated by that group. It's another thing entirely to use that as an excuse to tag and release citizens just because they act like animals.

    There has been very little that has been good since the DHS was formed. Maybe it's a matter of them preventing bad things from happening, but the tighter the grip, the more problems will seep through their fingers.
  • Don't get arrested or do anything remotely questionable (in the UK you get swabbed even if you're just cautioned) and don't go to the US. Oh, and if you do go to the US, don't accidentally drop anything down the plane toilet on your way there.
    • by Gordonjcp (186804)
      (in the UK you get swabbed even if you're just cautioned)

      Uhm, no. You get swabbed if you get arrested and charged. If you don't actually get convicted, the sample gets destroyed.
      • by Kamineko (851857)
        Eventually.
      • by yuna49 (905461)
        If you don't actually get convicted, the sample gets destroyed.

        If this practice is actually followed, it might mitigate some against building up a large library of samples from people wrongly accused of some crime.

        Still, how would you know that the sample was destroyed? Right now it's probably less costly to store the physical samples than to extract the sequence information and store it digitally somewhere. The time will come, though, when automated sequencers become cheap enough that digital storage mig
      • No, the DNA sample gets taken even if you're just arrested and cautioned, mine's on record from being arrested 6 years ago for breach of the peace even though it never went to court.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Sheepy (78169)

        Uhm, no. You get swabbed if you get arrested and charged. If you don't actually get convicted, the sample gets destroyed.

        That's not true.

        Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted.
        Gene Watch UK [genewatch.org]

        the permanent storage of bioinformation taken from witnesses, victims, children, and people who are not later convicted;
        The for [nuffieldbioethics.org]

      • Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)

        by The Frogstar (1189619) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:23AM (#23102558)
        That's simply not true. DNA and fingerprints are taken on arrest, regardless of whether or not you are charged. There is no system in place to remove this data once it is taken, even if you are found to have been wrongly arrested (I have had first hand experience of this).

        How else could there be over 3 million, almost 5% of the population on the database?

        As a British citizen I can't decide which scares me more, DNA databasing or CCTV cameras. I can't wait to move to Patagonia.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          As a British citizen I can't decide which scares me more, DNA databasing or CCTV cameras.

          You're showing your age. As constant surveillance becomes ubiquitous, people will simply take it for granted. Children now are (to some degree) getting their DNA put in a database by their own parents (for their own good that is), are being watched and tracked through cell phones and GPS tracking devices, have their lockers randomly searched at school, go through metal detectors (at some schools), and closed circuit camera's are starting to show up everywhere. It's all just a part of growing up. And for th

      • Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)

        by pinny20 (415459) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:23AM (#23102560)
        Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if you are arrested for anything more than a minor offence (no need to be charged) your DNA can be taken and stored on the UK National DNA Database. It does not get destroyed.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by happytechie (661712)
        No it doesn't inocent people are actively trying (and failing) to get their DNA removed from the database now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7266130.stm [bbc.co.uk] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6768725.stm [bbc.co.uk] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979490.stm [bbc.co.uk] Whilst the existance of a DNA record for previously innocent people is questionable in terms of human rights the power it has for tracking down people who have commited crimes is huge. The recent case in the UK of the murderer in suffolk is an good exampl
  • by Jodaxia (312456) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:01AM (#23102388)
    ...anything you say or DNA will be held against you in a court of law.
  • by giafly (926567) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:07AM (#23102432)
    Some criminals already plant cigarette butts in stolen cars, to confuse the evidence and implicate innocent people, and I predict more of this. It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.

    To avoid identity theft, not only should you shred everything with your name and address, but now you also need to flush or incinerate everything with your DNA on it.
  • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:08AM (#23102444) Journal

    "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."
    Yes, and removing hands prevents stealing. It doesn't mean it is a good idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So a terrorist who is US citizen, has a US passport, getting a an internal flight inside the USA, who's DNA is on file, will not hijack the plane?

      Oh well that's ok then ....

  • The police state has already started in Bushland. The state of Texas has decided that all teachers will be fingerprinted (http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/fp/faq_SB9.asp) and their fingerprints will be compared annually to a nationwide criminal database. Any teacher who is not fingerprinted will be terminated within eighty days. Of course, I was scheduled for fingerprinting Monday morning. The one company in the state of Texas given the bid to fingerprint teachers couldn't be bothered to show up M
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by techpawn (969834)

      Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?
      Pimps and Drug Dealers come to mind... wait did you say licensed...?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by beadfulthings (975812)
      Almost anybody who works around children, or at least that's been the case in Maryland for about twenty years or so. I worked in the IT department of a children's hospital and was fingerprinted along with every other employee including the doctors. (As I recall, we were also all tested for AIDS). As a parent, and as an employee, it doesn't bother me. I'd prefer not to consign my children to the care of someone with a criminal background. Your alternative if the privacy question bothers you would be to seek
      • by JasterBobaMereel (1102861) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:34AM (#23104390)
        Has your children's teacher ever been arrested for being involved in a protest against the government ...

        Note you won't be told *what* they were arrested for they just won't be teaching anymore ...

        So if you want to be a teacher don't protest ..If you want to work for the government don't protest .. ... If you want to work for a large company don't protest.. .......
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Awesome idea. I have no problems invading the privacy of others so long as it protects me. Just don't invade *my* privacy.

      ...
  • Enter the DHS DNA Sweepstakes now for your chance to win an all expense paid vacation at your regional FEMA Happy Clown Candy Fun Camp. No purchase necessary!

    War is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom.

  • It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime. Anyone that thinks so has the ignorance of those who think other races are inferior. It may be a small factor, but it is nowhere near as important as their development and current situation. And then I hear dolts that say, "well statistics say that blacks are more likely to commit a crime", but statistics also say that blacks live more impoverished conditions, and I bet you'll find an indisputable correlation between the two.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hal9000(jr) (316943)
      They aren't trying to check pre-disposition. They want positive identification.

      I am opposed to this on principle which is that giving this much freedom to a body in power leads invariably to abuse. Unfortnately, there are fewer places in the world that actually give a rats ass about freedom and liberty.

      Certainly not the US (I am American, btw) that claims to protect liberty with one hand and takes it away with another.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        They aren't trying to check pre-disposition. They want positive identification.

        Interestingly, DNA can be used for positive identification in the future, much more accurately than any other form of identification... but one problem exists: Data Entry inconsistencies...

        When I went to the DMV to get my license, I needed 3 original documents to prove I was who I said I was.

        Now if I get arrested with a convincing fake ID- then my DNA gets immediately tied to a fake persona - or worse, somebody else REAL. Why should such hardcore evidence have such a shakey foundation? They should requi

  • The trouble with DNA is that it doesn't say that person was there - only that their DNA was. If DNA was (is?) accepted as proof of someone being at a crime scene then it would be too easy to frame someone by planting a few hairs/whatever... Couple that with some circumstantial evidence/suspicion (maybe an anonymous tip) that plant was the criminal, and there's your "scientific" "proof".

    There was a recent case in the US where an attorney admitted letting an innocent man spend most of his life in prison becau
  • If things don't change for the better in 1(one) year then I'm emigrating to Norway. Who's comin' with me?!
  • Coupled with that often-used cause for arrest, "Driving While Black", the inevitable compromise of this data base should eventually provide wonderful marketing opportunities for companies who market their products primarily to the African American community.
  • Please Read 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pbailey (225135)
    I think everyone needs to (re)read 1984. And stop letting the government remove all your civil liberties in the name of making YOU safe !
  • The article said the the legislation would be posted on the Federal Register for 30 day comment. Anyone know where that would be? I am searching now, but I don't think I will find it.
  • by maroberts (15852) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:34AM (#23102656) Homepage Journal
    Unlike fingerprints, once you build up a sizeable DNA database, you can also to a certain extent work out the DNA of people related to the person whose DNA you sampled. (or more accurately, from the DNA, you can establish that the DNA of perpetrator was relative of someone in your database). This "creep" allows you to effectively have a DNA database for the entire population with only a small proportion of records.
  • by DnemoniX (31461) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:36AM (#23102676)
    I saw this story on Good Morning America this morning and they phrased things a little bit differently than this article. What is obvious to some but not all readers is that if you are being arrested by federal agents it is for a "federal crime". This has nothing to do with somebody being arrested for stealing a car, identity theft, simple assault etc.
    • by Reziac (43301) * on Thursday April 17, 2008 @01:03PM (#23108026) Homepage Journal
      This has nothing to do with somebody being arrested for stealing a car, identity theft, simple assault etc.

      Not yet...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dcam (615646)
      So only people arrested for federal crimes, like protesting, will have their DNA taken?
  • by Xian97 (714198) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:52AM (#23102850)
    While on the surface it may appear to be no more onerous than the fingerprinting system in use today, a DNA database would have far greater potential for abuse. What happens if they decide to use the DNA to detect ancestral or genetic heritage? Not to Godwin the thread, but technology like this would have clearly been misused in the not so recent past.

    With the recent abuses of the Patriot Act, I don't trust the government not to overstep the stated purpose of this policy either.
  • Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:04AM (#23102996) Homepage

    AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained

    Just fucking wow!

    How do they define 'detained' ... is someone coming into an airport who hasn't yet cleared customs and gets pulled aside for scrutiny "detained"? They're already fingerprinting and taking biometric data. And I know at one point Gonzales basically said such people have no rights and could be arbitrarily detained without any recourse, but hopefully everyone has thrown out any legal opinion he's ever offered by now. He clearly doesn't actually know anything about the Constitution.

    The move towards a near police state in the US is rather alarming.

    I, for one, won't set foot in the US any more, and I know I'm not alone. I'm just not willing to subject myself to the absolutely insane level of bullshit that America is subjecting its visitors to. Sadly, the level of xenophobia and isolationist sentiment is just too scary for me.

    Cheers
  • by vkg (158234) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:52AM (#23103646) Homepage
    Look, once you have the ability to use DNA fingerprinting, it's more or less inevitable that authoritarian groups will mount a long-term plan to use it. And for every group like the Innocence Project which is using it to exonerate people, there's five groups that go out after a political protest with mops and buckets to grab DNA samples of people who were there to run through the Federal Crime Database.

    I'm not *for* this, I'm simply noting that once the science is there, trying to stop it being used in obvious ways which have some tangible social benefits (rape becomes very, very much harder to get away with) is very hard, even if the social costs (political protests become hard to get away with too) are also very real.

    I have a partial solution to this problem.

    http://guptaoption.com/4.SIAB-ISA.php [guptaoption.com]

    It's a proposal - done on a DoD grant - for using strong cryptography and division of powers to separate the biometric database from the identity database, so that all the metadata about a DNA sample - name, for example - is encrypted in a way which requires court orders to retrieve and - *critically* - stored by a separate agency so that it requires three separate groups to work together to bind a name to a DNA sample.

    * the DNA database must run the sample
    * the Court must agree to decrypt the name information when it is presented
    * the Identity database must agree to provide the encrypted data to the court

    This approach gives excellent security to the individual, and acknowledges the simple reality that we can't make DNA analysis and other biometric technologies go away. We have to use other technologies to counterbalance them (strong crypto) rather than hoping to turn back the clock.
  • Tourism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sherriw (794536) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:02AM (#23103820)
    As a Canadian living close to the border, I'm feeling less and less welcome, and much less likely to pop over to the US to spend my dollars shopping or sight-seeing, given the growing risk that I'll be detained, finger printed, DNA stolen, laptop hard-drive taken or copied, and given a terrorist risk rating.

    Really, "welcome" to the land of the free.

    Here's hoping the coming election brings SOME kind of change.
  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @10:06AM (#23105020)
    DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."

    Its also true that:

    "Security cameras are a proven law-enforcement tool"

    Perhaps DHS spokesman Russ Knocke would be ok with surveillance cameras being installed in his home. I mean, hey, its a proven law enforcement tool, so he should be happy to submit to it.

  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @11:06AM (#23106118)
    That the means of genetically finger-printing are not entirely beyond the means of the concerned public? We often like to think that government officials are more virtuous or more protected than the rest of us, but they're not. Somewhere, somehow, they must leave DNA residue behind, be it at a diner or fundraiser or prostitute's bed.

    If we citizens resolve to track and catalogue them the way they do us, I think that we'd all quickly discover that the meme of holier-than-thou, upon which a policy like this rests, is a double-edged sword.

    Yes, the government has ostensibly more money than we average citizens do. But the gap is not so enormous that it cannot be overcome. If we, as citizens of democracies, undertake the same level of vigilence toward our leaders that they mandate over us, then I believe we shall quickly find that the balance tips in our favor.

    But more than our come-uppance, it is our duty to control those who supposedly work for us. Let's, as citizens, assert our employer's right to correct and discipline our employees in the government.
  • by Randym (25779) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:33PM (#23112304)
    DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'

    The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is a *better* freedom-enforcement tool -- *and* it has been used a lot longer than this new-fangled DNA stuff.

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. - Henry Spencer, University of Toronto Unix hack

Working...